Republicans

Blaming Bush For The Economy Is About The Future

Posted by on August 10, 2010 at 12:47 pm. 1 Comments :

Republicans, and their PR agency Fox News, are infuriated that President Obama and other Democrats continue to lay the blame for the economy on the shoulders of former President Bush. Their apoplexy centers on the notion that at some point Obama must assume some responsibility for the current state of affairs.

That would be a fair argument if sufficient time had elapsed to make a judgment about Obama’s economic policies. Most economists agree that a recovery from the sort of economic collapse that this nation just suffered takes several years to accomplish. It has only been a year and half. And even in that short time there have been notable achievements, including stemming the rate of job loss and injecting billions of dollars of stimulus funds into the economy.

But that isn’t what’s ultimately wrong with the complaints by Republicans. Blaming Bush for the economy isn’t a function of looking backward. First of all, Obama’s criticism has not been directed at Bush personally, but at his policies.

Obama: The policies that crashed the economy, that undercut the middle class, that mortgaged our future, do we really want to go back to that, or do we keep moving our country forward?

It seems inconceivable that anyone could defend the Bush plan knowing what we know today. Yet Republicans in the House and Senate are offering nothing new in the way of solutions. In fact, the only initiative they will articulate out loud is to preserve the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy that are about to expire.

Republicans are so adamant about carrying water for the rich that they appear to be willing to allow taxes to rise for the 98% of Americans who are not so privileged. What’s more, they also appear to be ready to abandon their concern for deficits since the tax cuts for the wealthy will balloon the deficit by more than $700 billion.

It is not surprising that Republicans should defend themselves and their former leaders. But the media should not be carrying their banner. The criticism of Obama for “bashing” Bush is thoroughly misplaced. If Republicans were offering a new set of solutions that deserved consideration, then they should be accommodated. But if all they are offering are the same ideas that came from the Bush administration, then the debate ought to be over. We already know what that would accomplish.

Therein lies the fallacy of the “blame Bush” complaint. Obama is not reaching backwards to assign responsibility for current conditions to the past president. He is forecasting the future consequences of repeating those mistakes. It is the Republicans who are bringing the Bush era back to the table by proposing nothing but what the Bush administration did. So the Obama administration has no choice but to rebut those proposals. That is not an attack on Bush. It is an attack on the current crop of Republicans who are parroting Bush.

Note to the media: While Obama has every right to remind the nation that the Bush policies got us where we are, that isn’t what he is focused on today. He is merely responding to Congressional Republicans who are advocating the failed Bush policies of the past. It is the Republicans who are reaching back to define a course for the future. Obama is looking forward to chart a course that avoids past mistakes and learns from them.

Iowa GOP Seeks To Strip Ronald Reagan Of US Citizenship

Posted by on July 29, 2010 at 11:14 am. 5 Comments :

In a Declaration from “We the People” of Iowa the Iowa Republican Party declares that…

“…the federal government has grown too large, too intrusive and too oppressive to the point that government now stifles the productivity, the freedom, the ingenuity and the very spirit of the American people. We declare that all three branches of government have been governing outside their well-defined bounds as stated in Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution of the United States.”

Consequently, they demand that…

“…the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government return to govern within their constraints clearly defined by the Constitution given to us by the founders in 1787 and further refined by the Bill of Rights in 1789.”

Notice that they did not demand a return to any of the amendments other than those in the Bill of Rights. So under their restoration of the original intent of the Founders, slavery would still be legal and women could not vote.

But what elevates this declaration from curiosity to idiocy, and beyond that to absurdity, is this charming little provision tucked away in the platform:

“7.19 – We call for the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th Amendment in today’s Constitution.”

Th 13th Amendment to which they refer is not the one presently in the Constitution that abolishes slavery. There was a 13th Amendment introduced prior to that that was never ratified. It proposed that…

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

The purpose of including this plank in the platform was to make a statement regarding President Obama having won the Nobel Peace Prize. Setting aside for the moment that the Nobel is not awarded by a “foreign power” and thus would not have triggered the provision, if it were applicable it would mean that every American Nobel winner (scientists, writers, etc.) would have had their citizenship revoked as well. What’s more, it would strip the citizenship of Americans honored by the British Crown with honorary knighthoods, including Bill Gates, Rudy Giuliani, Steven Spielberg, and the sainted Ronald Reagan.

Since these crackpots haven’t been able to prove that Obama isn’t a citizen because he wasn’t born in the U.S., they are now trying to revoke his citizenship, and that of hundreds of other dignified Americans, including many that are their heroes.

Just how crazy are these lunatics? Let’s take a look at a couple of other planks in their platform. Section 4.26 says that “We oppose teaching multicultural based curriculum.” Section 7.10 says that “We affirm that desecrating the American or state flags is not constitutionally protected free speech, and should be punished accordingly.” That was immediately followed by Section 7.11 that says “We oppose any regulation or law that would restrict the freedom of speech.”

And if you need any further evidence of the madness in the Iowa GOP, the platform declaration also contains an enumeration of values that were taken straight from Glenn Beck’s web site for the 912 Project. Eleven of the twelve values on Beck’s site are in the Iowa GOP platform. The missing one is “charity,” which the Iowans replaced with “common sense.” That is a telling substitution. Six of nine of Beck’s principles are in the platform as well.

With the Iowa GOP deciding who can and cannot be a citizen, and Beck providing divine inspiration and spiritual guidance, there are, as Beck would say, “dark days ahead” for the Republican Party.

Is The GOP Ashamed Of Its Tea Party Base?

Posted by on July 28, 2010 at 9:06 am. 5 Comments :

This morning the Fox Nation has placed as its top story an article on the Democrats’ new campaign to tie Tea Partyists to Republicans. Is that supposed to be a criticism? I thought the GOP and the Tea Baggers were best buddies. Republican candidates across the nation have embraced the Tea Party and enthusiastically sought their support. Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Paul Rand in Kentucky have been lauded as heroes within the GOP. Now, all of a sudden, they are complaining that Democrats are calling attention to the affection these conservative comrades have for one another.

When did the Republicans come to view the Tea Party as a liability? Why would this ad rattle them? Recent polling shows that 79% of Tea Partyists identified themselves as Republicans. And some of the top Republicans have been pandering to the Baggers in the most overt manner possible:

John Boehner, House Minority Leader: There really is no difference between what Republicans believe in and what the tea party activists believe in.

Sarah Palin, 1/2-term governor/Fox News contributor: The Republican Party would be really smart to start trying to absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible because this is the future of our country. The Tea Party movement is the future of politics.

Sen. Jim DeMint, GOP Chair Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, and more, share these sentiments. However, the Fox Nationalists seemed to be worried about the association with extremist elements of the Tea Bagging faction. The posting links to an article on The Daily Caller that goes into more detail about this troublesome trend. But the article doesn’t support the contention that it is the Tea Party that worries them. The Caller asserts that the Democratic effort is…

“…a swipe at House Republicans for not offering more specifics of how they would govern if they retake the House. But it’s also an attempt to force the GOP to own proposals by Rep. Paul Ryan.”

Are they worried about the Tea Party or their own Republican agenda? Paul Ryan may be a Tea Party sympathizer, but he is also a Republican leader and the ranking member of the House Budget Committee. Why would the GOP need to be “forced” to adopt the budget proposals of their own budget committee chief? Why are they ashamed to endorse their own platform and people? That’s all the Democrats are putting forth in their video and on the web site dedicated to the Republican Tea Party Contract on America. The site is a summary of the Republican agenda as stated by Republicans, and is fully annotated to document their positions.

While Fox Nation is serving the interests of the Republican Party by seeking to mock the Democrats’ campaign, the Fox Nationalist citizens of the web site (which hilariously just added the words “All Opinions Welcome” to their logo) are not as anxious to distance themselves from the Tea Bagging contingent. Here is a sampling of comments from these completely sane and reasonable folks:

Wolverine Oathkeeper: I do not think it is necessary to puke the reasons why I am not voting for ANY DemonRats especially Obama “The man from Kenya who scammed our country”. My core thought is that they do not represent “One Nation under God, Indivisible With Liberty and Justice For All”

Judgment: Decent People have the common sense to know that the Democratic party has become a Servant of Satan and is using all his favorite ‘tools’ of lies and deception to decieve the people.

Muslim socialist democrats …….taking lying to a whole nother level !: These muslim socialist democrats are runnin scared…………….There is no antidote for the socialist policies of the muslim moron ! America is fed up with these morons and there is nothing the muslim socialist democratic party can do !

WHITE&PROUD2: Hey Liberals, who gives a f–k what you do? Your time is up and you are irrelevant!!

s-t-g: I like the ad. I wish the republican party was more conservative and would enact much of what the tea party stands for.

Exactly! This ad is not the least bit derogatory from the perspective of the Tea Bagger. It is a documentary exposition of the current state of the Tea-publican establishment. No Tea Partyist would find this ad objectionable. So the question is…why do the Republicans and their media mouthpieces?

Update: House Minority Whip Eric Cantor is ashamed. He announced today that he would not be joining the Tea Party caucus in Congress recently founded by Michelle Bachmann (R-TP).

Waterloo For Fox News?

Posted by on March 22, 2010 at 7:47 pm. 5 Comments :

Fourteen months. Fourteen long months of the most venal, histrionic, sensationalized, dishonest, and relentless crusade of disinformation, and what do they have to show for it?


[Purchase FreakShow stickers at Crass Commerce

Fox News has been the official campaign headquarters for opposition to health care reform. They dispatched their top personalities to headline rallies and protests. They consigned thousands of hours of valuable air time to anti-reform politicians and pundits. They converted their studios into Republican platforms for electioneering and fundraising. They adopted the Tea Party “movement” so thoroughly that they even rode along on its bus tours and branded its events as Fox enterprises.

And they lost.

Fox News is fond of reminding everyone of their ratings dominance. Although the cable news universe is comparatively tiny (Fox News has less than half the viewers of the lowest rated broadcast news program on CBS), Fox incessantly boasts that it is the leader in the space. But the fallout from the health care debate ought to demonstrate precisely how little that victory means in the macro world of politics. If the number one cable news network cannot sufficiently move public opinion to produce a legislative victory after fourteen months of persistent propaganda, it would be folly to regard them as if they were some formidable bastion of power or influence. Yet that is exactly how they are regarded by their patrons in the Republican Party (and many in the press).

Last July I wrote an article describing how “Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party”

Fox has corralled a stable of the most disreputable, unqualified, extremist, lunatics ever assembled, and is presenting them as experts, analysts, and leaders. These third-rate icons of idiocy are marketed by Fox like any other gag gift (i.e. pet rocks, plastic vomit, Sarah Palin, etc.). […]

By doubling down on crazy, Fox is driving the center of the Republican Party further down the rabid hole. They are reshaping the party into a more radicalized community of conspiracy nuts. So even as this helps Rupert Murdoch’s bottom line, it is making celebrities of political bottom-feeders. That can’t be good for the long-term prospects of the Republican Party. […]

This is a textbook example of how the extreme rises to the top. It is also fundamentally contrary to the interests of the Republican Party. The more the population at large associates Republican ideology with the agenda of Fox News, and the fringe operators residing there, the more the party will be perceived as out of touch, or even out of their minds.

See also: As Fox News Goes Up, The GOP Goes Down

Undoubtedly, Republicans will still embrace Fox News. They are not about to abandon the media megaphone that they believe is most in tune with their agenda. Consequently, they will continue to be hampered by the association with unhinged hyperbole like this:

Glenn Beck: This is the end of prosperity in America forever if this bill passes. This is the end of America as you know it.

Hannity: If we get nationalized health care, it’s over; this is socialism.

Neil Cavuto: National Healthcare: Breeding Ground For Terror?

In an inspired fit of illogic, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard appeared on Fox News this morning to accuse Democrats of being partisan. His evidence was that 34 Democrats voted with Republicans against the health care care bill, but no Republicans voted with the Democrats in favor. Of course, that’s actually evidence that the Democrats were NOT partisan. They demonstrated some diversity in their views while Republicans all marched in lock-step against the bill. In further support of this inane argument, Hayes may have uttered the day’s funniest, and most truthful, commentary:

“If Bart Stupak was a Republican crazy he probably would’ve stuck with his original position.”

I couldn’t agree more. Sticking with his original position against the bill, would certainly have qualified Stupak as a Republican crazy. And it is generous of Hayes to admit that holding the Republican view is tantamount to being insane.

Where do you go after you’ve argued that Armageddon will be the result if your alarms are not heeded (as GOP chair Michael Steele did today) and your argument is rejected? Do you moderate your rhetoric and attempt to restore civility to the debate? Or do you accelerate into a frenzied panic and march a phalanx of livid lemmings over a cliff? My money is on the latter, so far as Fox News is concerned. They still consider it to be in their best interests to manufacture the sort of melodrama that captures television audiences.

Here it’s important to remember that the interests of a television network are worlds apart from those of a political party. So while Fox is happy to gin up the rancor in hopes of attracting more viewers stimulated by bloody conflicts, the GOP will only be further damaged by the partnership. However, unfortunately for them, they have nowhere else to go. Fox News, and a few other rightist authors and radio talkers, have become the de facto face of the Republican Party. This is a point made by conservative strategist David Frum in his discussion of health care winners and losers:

Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government.

Frum goes on to predict that the continuing, and escalating, hysteria will be a boon to right-wing media. I’m not sure that I agree with him on that point. Certainly the hardcore disciples of Beck and company will remain glued to their sets. But we might also see audiences recede out of frustration and/or fatigue. After pouring everything they had, including their sanity, into a winner-take-all death match and losing, it would surprise no one if a significant segment of the audience decided to take a vacation from the lunacy. If an effort as determined and prolonged as the one Fox just concluded could not prevail, then what would it take?

The good news from all of this is that, as abhorrent as Fox News is, it ought not to be viewed as a Goliath that will crush any opponent. They gave it their all and came up short. They huffed and they puffed, but the House stood strong (oh wait, that was a wolf). This is the clearest evidence yet that Rupert Murdoch’s empire is a paper Fox. However, that doesn’t mean that it should be neglected. It can still bark ferociously and the other members of the media pack continue to give Fox more credence than they deserve. And for these reasons we must remain vigilant and prepared to respond to the deceitful and unethical practices of this phony pseudo-news enterprise.

In the long term I continue to believe that an informed public will reject Fox’s brand of shallow and divisive disinformation. And looking back, the health care debate may one day be perceived as a turning point. It may be that this long, sordid affair will be the battle that turns the war for responsible journalism to favor reason and truth. It may be Fox News’ Waterloo.

[Update: 3/25/10] David Frum has been dismissed from his job at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. That’s what he gets for going rogue.

The G.O.P. Morphs Into The G.O.Tea

Posted by on February 7, 2010 at 11:36 pm. 2 Comments :

The National Tea Party Convention is over, but the battle for the soul of the so-called “movement” continues. Sarah Palin set the tone at her keynote speech to close the affair:

“The Republican Party would be really smart to start trying to absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible because this is the future of our country. The Tea Party movement is the future of politics.”

Sarah Palin's Crib NotesThe “future of politics” is typical Palin hyperbole. Clearly she doesn’t understand what she’s saying. This is a woman who just got through mocking President Obama for using a TelePrompter, while she has crib notes written on her hand for a Q and A to follow her speech; A woman who told her adoring audience not to be afraid of being God-fearing; A woman who told Chris Wallace that Obama could ace his reelection if he were to “play the war card” by attacking Iran. This is the same woman who thinks it would be smart for the GOP to absorb the Tea Baggers.

On that measure she is not alone. Despite protestations from ostensibly neutral players, leading figures in both the Tea Party and the Republican Party believe that they are made for each other. This contradicts those who say that Tea Baggers are non-partisan and are angry with both parties equally. The truth is that the Baggers were always more closely aligned with Republicans and the evidence is their own words:

John Boehner, House Minority Leader: There really is no difference between what Republicans believe in and what the tea party activists believe in.

Michael Steele, Republican Party Chairman: It’s important for our party to appreciate and understand that so we can move toward it, and embrace it.

Mark Skoda, Tea Party Leader: This movement is beginning to mature … not as a third party but a force to be reckoned with in the traditional party structure.

Carl Cameron, Fox News: They plan to establish separate spin off political action committees to fund raise for candidates who back Tea Party goals and the official Republican National Committee platform.

Newt Gingrich, Former GOP House Speaker: If the Republican Party offers a positive alternative in a way that Tea Party activists and independents join them, the tide could turn.

At this point it is inescapable that the Tea Party is a functional subsidiary of the GOP. Much of it’s original organizing muscle was provided by establishment Republican operatives like Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks and GOP PR firm Russo Marsh & Rogers. And now heavy-hitter Republicans like Palin are gripping the Baggers in a polar bear hug. All of this needs to be remembered when lazy or dishonest members of the press try to pretend that partisanship isn’t playing a part in this phony movement.

Why Does Glenn Beck Hate Democracy?

Posted by on January 20, 2010 at 6:24 pm. NO Comments :

In another display of hysterical dementia, Glenn Beck spent much of his program yesterday mangling American history and redefining the meaning of progressive. As usual, his interpretation of current events is rife with Apocalyptic gloom:

Beck: What we’re talking about is an ideological movement that has set its sights on the destruction of the Constitution and the fundamental transformation of the republic.

Beck’s proof for this prophesy of despair was a series of videos wherein Democrats described themselves as progressive, or promised to make progress on matters of interest to the nation. Progress, of course, is something that Beck and other conservatives deeply despise. That is why there has never been much of it during conservative administrations. As for progressives, Beck is recasting them as Satan’s minions who are “sucking the blood” out of the Democratic Party (Republicans too). He insists that there are no more Democrats, that they have all become infected and are now Marxists. To illustrate his point, Beck quoted Michael Moore issuing a warning to Democrats.

Moore: To the Democrats in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer you a personal pledge. I, and a lot of other people have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want. That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you. You think that we’re just going to go along with you because you’re Democrats? You should think again. Because we’ll find Republicans who are smart enough to realize that the majority of Americans want universal health care.

To which Beck replied: “Got it? They don’t care about the parties. They never have.”

You see? Moore articulated a pointedly non-partisan challenge to the people’s representatives, exhorting them to align themselves with the public will or face payback at the polls. It’s called democracy. Yet Beck construes this expression of democratic engagement as hostility to party politics. What’s funny about this, aside from Beck’s daft analysis, is that he himself has made a career of being hostile to party politics. In fact, if you remove some of the identifying words in Moore’s statement it could easily be mistaken for Beck himself.

Last August Beck embarked on a major project that he called “In or Out 2010.” It’s whole purpose, he said, was to hold elected representatives accountable to the people and to a 5-point pledge he proposed. In the program introducing the project Beck said:

“If your politician doesn’t believe, support or reflect these beliefs, in their actions, not what they say in cute little speeches, then they aren’t supporting you. You bring these words to them. They’re not supporting or protecting or defending the Constitution of the United States…It’s time to throw those bums out…You tell these politicians that you’re either in, or next election season, you are out.”

How is this different from what Moore said? The only difference is that it’s OK for Glenn Beck to say it, but not Michael Moore. It is the result of the entitlement Beck feels to threaten whoever he wishes, a right not afforded to anyone else. It is a decidedly anti-democratic attitude that pervades Beck’s philosophy. Yesterday’s blackboard sermon was an extended assault on democracy that focused on how corrupt it must be because Americans voted to send more Democrats to Washington than Republicans.

Beck: I could erase the Republicans. We could take them all outside and send them to the zoo all day long and it doesn’t matter. The Democrats could still pass all their legislation.

First of all, that would only be true if there were no diversity of opinion in the Democrat’s caucus, which we all saw last year is far from the case. Secondly, so what if were true? Isn’t that what democracy is all about? If you persuade more citizens to vote for your party/platform then you get to implement it (pay attention Democrats). But Beck gets even more squirrelly as he continues bashing democratic principles.

Beck: That’s why the Democrats need these phantom villains because who’s resisting them? There’s no debate, right? Except the debate inside their own party. Inside the 256 Democrats and the 58 Democrats. You see debate…debate…that’s a needed ingredient for a recipe. One that doesn’t end up in tyranny. Debate. That’s not what we have now in the house and the senate.

In Beck’s world, which is overrun with phantoms and villains, there is no debate amongst Democrats. Of course, in the real world, getting Democrats to agree on anything is a Herculean undertaking. That’s why they have failed to invoke cloture on the record number of Republican filibusters. And it’s why so many judges and other White House appointees are still awaiting confirmation. And it’s why there still isn’t a health care bill.

On the other side of the aisle, however, the GOP marches in lockstep, holding together their homogeneous caucus without debate. It is a strictly disciplined organism that will not countenance dissent. It is the epitome of the recipe for tyranny that Beck assails. But somehow Beck recites this quotation from John F. Kennedy with no irony whatsoever:

JFK: Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can survive.

Unless they are Republicans, in which case they get a free pass from Beck who simply finds democracy distasteful. If the people speak out in favor of candidates or policies that Beck dislikes they are misguided and the system is broken. If Beck approves of the people’s decisions then those in the minority should shut up and stop trying to peddle their socialist propaganda. That’s what passes for debate in Beck’s cartoon brain. After all, how do you argue with someone who believes that God is the grantor of rights?

Last year, Beck announced that “the whole approach changes” for his show starting this month. I haven’t seen any evidence of that, but the month isn’t over yet. His announcement coincided with the disclosure of yet another Beck initiative (following the 912 Project, Re-Founders, In or Out 2010, etc.), the ominously christened “The Plan,” a one hundred year blueprint for the restoration of an America that exists only in his mangled mentality. Speculation circulated that this would be a voter registration/community organizing project. In other words, Beck may be starting his own ACORN. So we’re still waiting to see if the democracy-hating Beck will emulate an organization that he regards as anti-democratic.

Michael (Injun) Steele Calls For Harry (Negro) Reid To Resign

Posted by on January 10, 2010 at 2:41 pm. 4 Comments :

The press is going bonkers over the latest pseudo-scandal it is attempting to whip up. The headlines are popping up everywhere and with ever greater sensationalism. The chairman of the Republican Party wants the leader of the Democrats in the Senate to resign for using inappropriate language.

  • Steele calls on Reid to resign, Washington Post
  • GOP Chairman Pressures Reid on Obama Remarks, New York Times
  • Republican Steele Says Reid Should Step Down From Leader Post, BusinessWeek
  • Senate leader must go following ‘Negro’ remark: Republicans, AFP
  • GOP chair: Reid should step down following race remark, CNN
  • Steele tells Reid to step down, Politico
  • Steele: Reid should resign Senate post, UPI
  • Republicans call on Senator Reid to quit post, Reuters
  • Steele: Reid Should Quit Leadership Post, Wall Street Journal
  • Michael Steele Shocks the World by Calling for Harry Reid to Step Down, New York Magazine

And on it goes. Personally, I wouldn’t mind in the least if Reid surrendered the Majority Leader post. I’ve been advocating a change in leadership for almost two years. This may not be the way I would have chosen for him to go, but I believe the Democratic Party would be better served by a more aggressive and tactically savvy leader. Reid is responsible for some of the most infuriating capitulations in recent memory. From FISA to Iraq/Afghanistan to health care, he seems determined to begin every negotiation from a disadvantaged position.

That said, it is utterly absurd for Michael Steele to be taking the lead in calling for Reid to step down due to Reid’s use of the word “negro.” While Reid’s comment was certainly inappropriate, the word in itself is not pejorative, it was said in private, and in context it was complimentary to Obama. However, just a few days ago Steele publicly used an unambiguously insulting term for Native Americans: “Injun.” Yet Steele defends his criticism of Reid and dismisses his own intolerance. When asked if he should resign himself, Steele told Chris Wallace…

Steele: No, absolutely not. Why should I Chris? I’m pushing the ball. I’m raising the money. I’m winning elections. I have got the base fired up. […] I wasn’t intending to say a racial slur at all. The reality is that’s not the same as what we were talking about before.

Of course it’s not the same if it refers to himself. And since he didn’t intend to say a racial slur we should all just drop the subject – except Reid should still resign. This couldn’t be more hypocritical if Steele had insisted that “That cracker should resign for saying negro.”

Republicans might want to see if they can find another spokesperson on this issue. Steele doesn’t exactly hold the moral high ground. What’s more, his pompous self-glorification regarding his fundraising and electoral prowess is mightily overblown considering that Republicans have lost more races than not during his tenure (especially the NY-23 embarrassment), and he is bankrupting the party while stuffing his own pockets. The only people he is firing up are tea party activists who are after his hide, and deep-pocketed donors whom he has motivated to cease all contributions as long as he is chairman.

The substance of these events are decidedly negative for Steele and his party, yet somehow the media is still spinning it as a problem for Reid and the Democrats. Can someone please remind why we are supposed to believe that the media is liberal?

Thank God For RNC Chair Michael Steele – Seriously!

Posted by on January 9, 2010 at 7:27 pm. 2 Comments :

He does indeed work in mysterious ways. I’m talking about the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Mystery surrounds him like the Shroud of Turin. That’s why we have to be grateful for the gift that Steele represents and not question it. No one could do what he is doing – for the Democratic Party. And he couldn’t have come at a better time. So say a prayer for Chairman Steele who recognizes the divine role he has been sent to play:

Steele: God, I really believe, has placed me here for a reason because who else and why else would you do this unless there’s something inside of you that says right now you need to be here to do this?

Such poignant questions. Who else and why else? There must be a reason that Steele is here sabotaging the interests of his party. That reason is becoming clearer with every passing day: God is a Democrat.

Why else would He send a GOP leader who praises ACORN?
Why send a leader who concedes the elections of 2010 ten months in advance?
Why send a chairman who tells the critics in his own party to “shut up?”
Well, to be fair, they want him to shut up too.
And what did Democrats do to deserve a Republican leader who is bankrupting his party and alienating donors?

God’s messenger, Michael Steele claims to be a real Tea Bagger. In fact he promised to bring “change in a tea bag.” That was last year when he also asked a college audience to wear his “hat of an idea,” and announced that “the era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over,” and bragged that he was “going beyond cutting edge.”

Steele’s recent public comments on his party’s prospects this year extend beyond his opinion that they don’t look too good. He actually passes a sort of judgment on them questioning whether they are even ready to assume power. He says it’s something that he is “assessing and evaluating now.” Where he got the impression that that is the role of a party chairman, I don’t know (from God?). Mere mortal party chiefs generally understand their duties as raising money and getting more members elected, not shaping policy and anointing candidates. But Steele rises above such restrictions, freely criticizing his flock and lecturing them on political matters.

If you think this is just too good to be true, reflect for a moment on what Steel told us last March that confirms the mystery in his ways:

Steele: If I do something, there’s a reason for it. Even, it may look like a mistake, a gaffe. There is a rationale, there’s a logic behind it.

That settles it. Do not dare to question God’s servant. He is playing on level that far exceeds your ability to comprehend. He even has the gift of clairvoyance. Just yesterday, after taking heat from his party comrades for exploiting his position for personal gain and promoting his book instead of tending to party business, Steele shot back that he had written the book before he had become party chairman. But miraculously, he must have known in advance a multitude of events in 2009 that occurred after he had become chairman but were still included in the book he now says was written before. If that isn’t evidence of sainthood, what is?

So say a another prayer for Michael Steele. He is a treasure for which we must all be grateful. And be thankful that Democrats everywhere have him working on their behalf in the name of God. Amen.

Republicans Are To Blame For Terrorism

Posted by on December 28, 2009 at 4:44 pm. 8 Comments :

On Christmas day the passengers of a plane bound for Detroit narrowly missed a catastrophe. At this time there is still much that is unknown about the attempted act of terrorism, the culprit, or his affiliations. But one thing is clear: It is all the Republican’s fault.

Republicans Screw AmericaIs that too hyperbolic an assertion so soon after the incident occurred? Of course it is. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from asserting that very same claim against Democrats with all seriousness. In a cynical and self-serving search for blame, it only took a few hours for Republicans to start throwing charges at President Obama.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) was asked Sunday if it was fair to blame Obama. Without hesitation he answered, “Yeah, I think it really is.” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) fingered the unionization of airport security workers and the closing of Gitmo, along with the standard allusion to appeasement. And scads of right-wing bloggers piled on the Transportation Security Administration and Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.

A closer look at the circumstances preceding the attempted attack paint an entirely different picture. For instance it is DeMint who has been personally blocking the President’s TSA chief appointment for months. House Republicans, including most of their leadership, just voted against funding for explosives detection systems and other aviation security measures. And the House recently passed a Republican-authored bill to ban the use of the full-body scanners that many are claiming could have prevented this incident.

The most damning evidence of the Republicans guilt is seen in the rhetoric they’ve employed for many months that casts Obama as weak and our nation as more vulnerable than ever. They seem to be signaling to Al Qaeda that now is the time to strike. Take note of what Dick Cheney said about this five years ago:

“Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.”

And ever since Obama took office Cheney and other Republican officeholders and pundits have been striving to manufacture such a perception. Some examples:

Cheney: It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe.

Mitt Romney: It’s the very kind of thinking that left America vulnerable to the attacks of Sept. 11th.

Joe Scarborough (MSNBC): I knew by the second day that America was less safe.

Laura Ingraham (Fox News): I think you can make a pretty compelling case that we’re less safe today.

John Boehner: I think this is a pre-9/11 mentality, and I think it’ll make our nation less safe.

Karl Rove: They’re doing the wrong thing for our country, they’re doing the wrong thing for our men and women in uniform, and they’re making us less safe.

David Gregory (Meet the Press): But do you agree with the vice president when he says that the country is less safe under President Obama?
Newt Gingrich: Absolutely.

In other words, “Come on down, Al Qaeda. The door’s wide open and we’re sitting here playing tiddlywinks.” I first asked this question last May:

“How does announcing to the terrorists that they believe our nation is becoming weaker make us safer? Do they even care? Are they just pasting a big bulls eye on America and hoping for an ‘I told you so’ moment?”

It appears from the Republican’s response to this latest incident of terrorism that my speculation was sadly on target. It appears that the only things the right are interested in are bashing Democrats, announcing alleged security flaws, and gloating when the unthinkable (almost) happens. That is not a recipe for national security. And if they don’t cut it out, they are going to regret the consequences which will be tragic and entirely their fault.

CNN Contributor Is New RNC Communications Director

Posted by on November 24, 2009 at 9:57 am. 1 Comments :

The Republican National Committee just hired Alex Castellanos to head their communications efforts. Castellanos replaces Trevor Francis who was fired because he wasn’t getting RNC chair, Michael Steele, enough publicity.

This appears to a move toward a more aggressive posture by the RNC. Steele has been wildly ineffective in his role as chairman, generating more ridicule than anything else. His response to that is to bring in a media enforcer to harden the GOP message machine.

Castellanos is best known for his scorched earth and racially charged themes in his political campaigns, including those of former Sen. Jesse Helms. For several years Castellanos has been another talking head on CNN’s political panels even though he has remained a paid advisor to Republican candidates and causes. This has always been a clear violation of journalistic ethics, yet CNN has compounded their ethical blindness with this announcement:

“Castellanos is a CNN contributor, but the network learned independently of his new role at the RNC.”

So even though Castellanos is a CNN employee, he did not inform his bosses that he was assuming new duties on behalf of a political party. CNN had to learn this from someone else. And still, there was no indication in the announcement that CNN would cut Castellanos loose from his role as a commentator. Apparently having partisan conflicts of interest is not a problem for CNN, even when they are deliberately withheld.

Well, that’s the “liberal” media for ya.