Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditRepublican National Committee chairman Michael Steele says he has a secret two-stage plan to reform and transform the party that has been battered by the voters in the last two election cycles.
He's not revealing any details.
But perhaps we can speculate.
Stage One: Get in a fight with the party's most prominent media ally.
Steele accomplished this by describing radio personality Rush Limbaugh as an "entertainer" who peddles "ugly" and "incendiary" extremism. Limbaugh got wind of the chairman's heresy. Steele apologized and begged to be forgiven.
Stage Two: Get in a fight with party leaders in Congress.
In an interview with syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, which was published today, Steele griped about congressional Republicans who have criticized his, er, leadership.
Steele suggested the criticism had nothing to do with his as yet undisplayed skills and everything to do with the fact that he has cut RNC payments to GOP congressional elections committees from $4 million a piece for the House and Senate operations to $1 million a piece.
"The mice who are scurrying about the Hill are upset because they no longer have access to the cheese, so they don't know what's going on," grumbled the party boss.
What does anyone want to bet that another apology will be forthcoming?
What does anyone want to bet that calls will continue to mount for Steele's replacement by a competent -- or, at least, somewhat less embarrassing -- RNC chair?
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I guess I'll say it. This guy is in his position because the GOP wants to look multi-cultural. I think I remember about 5 people at the latest Rebublican National Convention that weren't really pale (and overfed).
Posted by chawnman at 03/11/2009 @ 2:56pm
I take is as a fairly innocuous reference to the book, "Who Moved My Cheese?"
Posted by srjenkins at 03/11/2009 @ 3:07pm
Plus, throw in the guy is STILL running late with his staff appointments (Chief of Staff, Communications Dir., Political Dir.).
He fired the lot when he took over but isn't moving fast to replace the higher-ups.
And....it's only 20 months until the midterms!
Not a good sign.
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2009 @ 3:08pm
it's a mickey mouse operation.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2009 @ 3:41pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2009 @ 3:41pm
More like a "steamboat willie" operation at this point, FROS.
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2009 @ 3:45pm
Of Mice and Newsmen By Brian Frederick Wednesday March 04, 2009
The salt marsh harvest mouse is an endangered rodent that lives in the marshes around the San Francisco Bay. Because of development around the Bay Area, the tiny mouse's existence as a species is now threatened.
That's the story of the salt marsh harvest mouse.
The story of the story of the salt marsh harvest mouse, however, is much more interesting. It illustrates how the conservative noise machine works--and how some media play a far-too-willing role in abetting that noise machine.
Republicans have been up in arms in recent weeks about using $30 million from the economic recovery act to save the salt marsh harvest mouse and its habitat.
There's just one problem: There is no money in the package for the salt marsh harvest mouse. Or its habitat.
But that hasn't stopped numerous media figures and outlets from baselessly asserting that there is.
The mouse tale began with a House Republican staffer who circulated an e-mail charging that a federal agency said it planned to use stimulus money to save the mouse's habitat.
The following day, the conservative Washington Times ran a story headlined, "Pelosi's mouse slated for $30M slice of cheese," which reported that "House Republicans are challenging Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that the massive stimulus spending bill contains no pet projects after uncovering in the bill more than $30 million for wetlands conservation in her San Francisco Bay Area district, including work she previously championed to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse." But the bill didn't include "$30 million for wetlands conservation" in the Bay Area, nor did it say anything about the mouse.
OF MICE AND KARMA!
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2009 @ 3:49pm
I was thinking more Humphrey Bogart in The Caine Mutiny.
Posted by Benchrest at 03/11/2009 @ 3:50pm
More like a "steamboat willie" operation at this point, FROS.
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2009 @ 3:45pm
THINK AGAIN!
Pali Downgrades Disney After Three Month Decline
March 11, 2009 | about stocks: DIS
Pali analyst Richard Greenfield downgraded The Walt Disney Company (DIS) to Sell from Neutral after the stock declined 38% in the past three months versus a 24% decline in the S&P 500.
His change was premised on what he believes is: (1) struggling content compared to the past few years and he believes 2009 will be a challenging year, citing disappointing results for Bolt; (2) 2009 will not be a trough year for theme parks given the possibility of a delayed economic recovery; (3) the strengthening dollar will result in less foreign travel to Orlando - this revenue stream is higher margin; and (4) management has less flexibility with share repurchases given increasing capital expenditures and falling EBITDA - share repurchases had driven earnigns growth over the years.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2009 @ 3:51pm
THE WHEELS ON THE BUS!
GO! ROUND! AND! ROUND!
But Eisner's statement cannot be taken at face value, because Disney, through its various subsidiaries, is one of the largest distributors of political, often highly partisan media content in the country-- virtually all of it right-wing. Consider:
Almost all of Disney's major talk radio stations-- WABC in New York, WMAL in D.C., WLS in Chicago, WBAP in Dallas/Ft. Worth and KSFO in San Francisco-- broadcast Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Indeed, WABC isconsidered the home station for both of these shows, which promote an unremitting Republican political agenda. (Disney's KABC in L.A. carries Hannity, but has Bill O'Reilly instead of Limbaugh.) Disney's news/talk stations are dominated by a variety of other partisan Republican hosts, both local and national, including Laura Ingraham, Larry Elder and Matt Drudge.
Disney's Family Channel carries Pat Robertson's 700 Club, which routinely equates Christianity with Republican causes. After the September 11 attacks, Robertson's guest Jerry Falwell (9/13/01) blamed the attacks on those who "make God mad": "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America." Robertson's response was, "I totally concur."
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by chawnman at 03/11/2009 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Racism is ALWAYS in style and P.C. if a black is known to be Republican, you know, the party that freed the slaves, had the first state (Texas) black congressmen, and against the objections of Demoncrats passed the 14th amendment! (who suddenly got religion and voted for it)
Never could figure out why black americans would rather believe the LIES of the Demoncrats and continually be their highly useful "pawns" existing on crumbs from their table?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 3:55pm
SQUEAK!
"'Well, we ain't got any,' George exploded. 'Whatever we ain't got, that's what you want. God a'mighty, if I was alone I could live so easy. I could go get a job an' work, an' no trouble....An' whatta I got,' George went on furiously. 'I got you! You can't keep a job and you lose me ever' job I get. Jus' keep me shovin' all over the country all the time. An' that ain't the worst. You get in trouble. You do bad things and I got to get you out.'"
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2009 @ 3:57pm
Ah, the GOP soap opera continues.
And I'm loving it.
Consider this:
The Democracy Corps released results of a public survey on Wednesday that underscores just how astute a political strategy it is for Democrats to tie the Republican Party to Rush Limbaugh.
According to the Democratic polling firm, voters view the conservative talk show host "negatively by a two-to-one ratio (53 to 26 percent), with nearly half the country, 45 percent, viewing him very, very negatively. Among independents, the ratio rises to three-to-one."
In short, Limbaugh is toxic for the GOP brand. But the findings only get worse from there. "By a nearly two-to-one ratio (57 to 32 percent) a majority of voters -- and independents -- say Limbaugh does not "share their values," but Republicans are in a different world where, by two-to-one, they believe he shares them."
The study's authors summarize their findings as such:
"On virtually every question the great majority of the mainstream rejects Limbaugh's ideas and vision of the Republican Party, which severely constrains Republican elected leaders. It does not help that some of the key voters in the 2006 and 2008 elections, like younger voters, are particularly uncomfortable with Limbaugh's politics."
- From the Huffington Post, March 9
Posted by FDR43 at 03/11/2009 @ 4:02pm
It just doesn't stop, huh? Team Magic can hide behind the games of MiniMousing Michael Steel and SuperSizing Rush for how long?
UPDATE 1-Freddie Mac 4th-qtr loss $23.9 bln, needs capital
Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:48pm EDT
NEW YORK, March 11 (Reuters) - Freddie Mac, a top mortgage finance company the U.S. government is depending on to help stabilize the housing market, said on Wednesday it needs $30.8 billion from the Treasury to survive after a massive fourth-quarter loss.
Freddie Mac (FRE.P)(FRE.N) reported a net loss of $23.9 billion, nearly 10 times that of a year ago. The loss followed $25.3 billion in red ink for the third quarter of 2008, it said in a statement.
The company, the second-largest provider of funding to the U.S. mortgage industry, recorded $7.2 billion in credit-related expenses, $7.5 billion in write-downs on securities and $13.3 billion of losses on derivative hedges, it said.
Freddie Mac is struggling to contain losses as the Obama administration is asking it and rival Fannie Mae to boost their support of the housing market. The U.S. recently doubled its capital commitment to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to $200 billion each,...
(Reporting by Al Yoon; Editing by Dan Grebler)
Posted by Happy at 03/11/2009 @ 4:13pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 3:55pm
I am betting it looks like a swirling tie dye. Yes, I am refering the color of the sky in your world. Or do really think the current repugnant pary resembles that of the republican party in the 1860s?
Posted by Extraneous at 03/11/2009 @ 4:14pm
It's good to consider some of the historical context: African-Americans became Republicans because of Lincoln, of course. BUT, they switched to the Democrats with FDR and the New Deal (for obvious reasons) and have of course been ever since the most loyal members of (what remains of) the New Deal coalition.
And the Dems have served them well. Dems gave them (and all of us) Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, thoroughly embraced the goals of the civil rights movement in the 60s (unlike conservatives, of course, though they now have, retroactively, so most of them say), provided low-income housing, fought a war (somewhat successful) on poverty, etc. These things all tremendously benefitted black Americans.
And they were all done by Democrats.
Posted by FDR43 at 03/11/2009 @ 4:21pm
It's good to consider some of the historical context: African-Americans became Republicans because of Lincoln, of course. BUT, they switched to the Democrats with FDR and the New Deal (for obvious reasons) and have of course been ever since the most loyal members of (what remains of) the New Deal coalition.
And the Dems have served them well. Dems gave them (and all of us) Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, thoroughly embraced the goals of the civil rights movement in the 60s (unlike conservatives, of course, though they now have, retroactively, so most of them say), provided low-income housing, fought a war (somewhat successful) on poverty, etc. These things all tremendously benefitted black Americans.
And they were all done by Democrats.
Posted by FDR43 at 03/11/2009 @ 4:21pm
And I left out the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (Obviously highly beneficial to blacks.)
Signed into law by a Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson.
Posted by FDR43 at 03/11/2009 @ 4:25pm
Posted by Happy at 03/11/2009 @ 4:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Who was POTUS in the 4th-qtr of 2008?
Posted by !immutable at 03/11/2009 @ 4:28pm
At the time that it truly COUNTED (while the civil rights movement was occuring, WHEN blacks demanded and needed to actually GET their human and civil rights), it was LIBERALS who totally embraced the goals and aims of the civil rights movement, NOT conservatives.
At the time, WE liberals were right on the question of civil rights and racial equality, WE were at the forefront of the struggle for such, NOT conservatives.
Of course, for what it's worth, most conservatives NOW (many retractively) embrace that sruggle.
Posted by FDR43 at 03/11/2009 @ 4:29pm
Taking all this into consideration, it is no surprise that African-Americans remain the most loyal base of the Democratic Party.
Posted by FDR43 at 03/11/2009 @ 4:31pm
And I left out the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (Obviously highly beneficial to blacks.)
Signed into law by a Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson.
Posted by FDR43 at 03/11/2009 @ 4:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Championed by the Republicans in congress while the Demoncrats voted NO against civil rights! (history revision is such an offense to truth)
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 4:53pm
We need to stop making jest of Steele and his friend Rush. Progressives should genuflect and offer praises to these two great republican leaders. They are epitomizing what we all have know to be the high-test qualities of the GOP. Applaud them as they provide the leadership needed to catapult the Reaganites into oblivion.
Posted by m1kem1lls at 03/11/2009 @ 4:54pm
Never could figure out why black americans would rather believe the LIES of the Demoncrats and continually be their highly useful "pawns" existing on crumbs from their table?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 3:55pm
So why do you think this is? What's your theory?
Posted by MATTMAN at 03/11/2009 @ 5:04pm
And I left out the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (Obviously highly beneficial to blacks.)
Signed into law by a Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson.
Posted by FDR43 at 03/11/2009 @ 4:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists--one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor
Of yea, LBJ, how about that!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 5:13pm
Championed by the Republicans in congress while the Demoncrats voted NO against civil rights! (history revision is such an offense to truth)
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
What do you think the big reason the south converted to republicanism overwhelmingly was...right after the civil rights act passed? I'm so happy to learn that southern republicans are such warriors in the fight against racism!
Posted by MATTMAN at 03/11/2009 @ 5:16pm
How Demoncrats before 1964?
May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%
February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth, African-American Republicans and women's suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP
May 21, 1919 Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no
August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures
January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster
June 2, 1924 Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans
October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention
June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country
August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation
June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 5:24pm
August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman's surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California's three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education
November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel
March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation
June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down "blacks in the back of the bus" law
November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President
September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party's 1957 Civil Rights Act
September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools
May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans' Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats
May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 5:26pm
September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School
June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate
Tell us more about how the Demoncrats are so righteous and just when it comes to civil rights?!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 5:27pm
Using the rules employed by the MSM and Democrat party concerning acceptable types of criticism toward minority politicians ( which only applies to those minorities with "D" in front of thier names ), I'd have to call mr Nichols a RACIST! Is Mr. Nichols' implication of Mr. Steel's incompetence racist code like that of the term " community organizer"? Is Mr. Nichols' use of the term " embarrassing ", to describe Steele, racist code for n....r? We all know that it was racist to question Obama's experience, so why is what Mr. Nichols' is doing any different? Let's not forget the Oreo's thrown in Mr. Steele's presence by those ultra-tolerant, non-violent, free-speech loving, culturally sensitive, deep-thinking, compassionate, and DIPLOMATIC liberals! LOL!
Posted by barry25 at 03/11/2009 @ 5:49pm
I miss half the stuff the goes on here because of my ignore list. Problem is when I do take some of these people like comancheamerican and others my monitor starts to smell funny. Oh well. I'm just glad some of you are much more civilized or grown up than I seem to be. You seem to be able to respond to these residents of the planet Fantasia with out blowing an artery.
Posted by bascaville at 03/11/2009 @ 5:54pm
Yep barry25, it shows just how hot I get thinking about my 8yr. black republican representative being called Oreo, House nigger, Uncle Tom, Republican step and fetch it etc. and on and on! That was done by liberals, Demoncrats, NAACP and all the other today P.C. enlightened fools!
The guy was a devout Christian, a highly respected statesman, and elected by an 80% white electorate twice to congress. I wonder why he refused to run again?
Maybe it was the way the press and Demoncrats and leftist treated him when he was the RNC keynote speaker!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 5:57pm
Oh yea, that was 80% white southern republicans that voted for him giving him a landslide victory twice!!!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 5:58pm
Posted by bascaville at 03/11/2009 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The truth usually does that to regressives!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 5:59pm
comancheamerican: realizing that there are still people like you out there paying attention to these psycho marxists gives me much needed hope in this dark time! God Bless!
Posted by barry25 at 03/11/2009 @ 6:10pm
These guy wear ignorance and hypocrisy like a their best suit. God hates sin and lies are sin! I try my best to be nice, but I'm too old to play nice anymore and Iv'e always been to stubborn to just quit like my 101yr. old uncle who just quit farming and died this yr.!
Who know maybe someone will use their brain for more than just parking thier hat!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 6:21pm
I agree, the gloves have definitely come off because journalism is DEAD! Therefore, I have embarked on my own little campaign to enlighten those around me, in the most non-politically correct manner possible, concerning the outright evil policies of the illiberal Demoncats!
Posted by barry25 at 03/11/2009 @ 6:34pm
And RIO....all those Southern Democrats are Republicans now....
Notice anything about the states that McCain and Palin won and your lists????
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2009 @ 7:09pm
Can we agree that both parties have a net shitty record on race? Probably because white America has a net shitty record on race?
You can say Goldwater was wrong on Civil Rights. True. I can say LBJ sold out the great Fannie Lou Hamer and the MFDP, dissolving much of the hope that had been built up by Freedom Summer. True.
The parties in their PRESENT form are what they are NOW. I come to this sight mostly to criticize Left dogmas that I disagree with, (where better to engage lefties than on a left site). That is not because I, or my more outright conservative friends, are direct ideological descendents of Goldwater, or Bull Connor.
I know history is relevant, but not when it hinders any discussion of actual policy.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/11/2009 @ 8:25pm
Posted by gangpapist at 03/11/2009 @ 8:25pm
Well, gang, let's say a major influence from the Media on the Republican Party had said, in the mid-1970s....to a black caller into his music radio show-
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back"?
Relevant or not relevant?
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2009 @ 8:35pm
Mask,
Relevant, if you're saying that the Reps in the last few decades have more to be ashamed of (propaganda-wise) on the race issue.
I agree that there is still a small racist component to the Republican party. Although, having been raised in a big Democrat city, but having traveled a bit, I'll bet that some of the white Dem-voting working class enclaves in the Northern cities are some of the most racist places in America.
I'll even confess that when National Review gave a rosy eulogy to Jesse Helms a couple years ago, I knew that I was still homeless politically.
But if someone like me, or my con friends, believes that the Great Society programs have been disastrous for the black working class, can't the Left accept that on good faith?
Posted by gangpapist at 03/11/2009 @ 9:33pm
Posted by gangpapist at 03/11/2009 @ 9:33pm
It's difficult. Like the fact there are a tiny fraction of anti-Semites in the critics of Israel (some here...you can spot them when they start talking "Jews" and not "Zionists"), but not a majority...
but the charge still gets thrown out as a blanket charge if you don't toe the "Israel can do no wrong" line by the vehemently pro-Israel side.
So it's difficult I agree for Republicans to have a serious debate on what is or is not "good for black America" or Latino america or female America or whatever...when you've got guys like Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or whoever as the mouthpieces.
BTW, that was Limbaugh who said that back in the 70s.
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2009 @ 10:04pm
And RIO....all those Southern Democrats are Republicans now.... Posted by Mask at 03/11/2009 @ 7:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And all the yankee socialistic liberal extremsit now call themselves democrats because NOT believing in the Holy Bible and God is a party requirement, right! (correction;Demoncrats)
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 10:15pm
Mask, why are you so ashamed of the "heritage" of the Demoncrat party? Some of those guys are STILL in congress that voted AGAINST civil rights!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 10:17pm
Posted by gangpapist at 03/11/2009 @ 8:25pm |
"I know history is relevant, but not when it hinders any discussion of actual policy."
Is that what you think goes on here? =)
Posted by srjenkins at 03/11/2009 @ 10:23pm
Explain this mAsK;
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 10:31pm
Keep trying to perpetuate the LIE that yesterdays Demoncrats are now Republicans! Maybe take a history lesson or two!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 10:34pm
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2009 @ 10:04pm
That is why I would prefer that both parties back off and let black people succeed, or not, on their own, without government hindrance or "help" (yes, of course, with some exceptions).
Black people have done well for themselves considering the three-headed monster - thinly-veiled hostility from some Reps, uncritical fidelity to failed policies from Dems, racial self-defeatism from some within - assembled against them. I wouldn't wish that handicap placed on any ethnic group.
Can we let Obama and Michael Steele succeed or fail on their merits? Probably not.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/11/2009 @ 10:43pm
Can we let Obama and Michael Steele succeed or fail on their merits? Probably not.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/11/2009 @ 10:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It is so much easier and eminently so successful as well as deceptively disengenuous to smear people like J.C.Watts, Condelessia Rice, and great honest intellectuals like Thomas Sowell, and the Hon. Clarence Thomas than to accord them their rightful place in history and society. However, that is how the Demoncrat party plays the game!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 10:54pm
I found Thomas's autobiography as honest as one could be and revealing of the lies and deception used against him. I was biased as I knew Anita Hill and her pathalogical dishonesty from her teaching years at OU!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 11:05pm
On the one hand we have America's first black president inheriting a financial disaster, and as a victory bonus an out of control Congress, with an uncritical, self-congratulatory, MSM, busy building a personality cult he may or may not have wanted.
On the other, the first black RNC chair, party in disarray, constantly challenged by the mostly white media, as to whether or not he can represent "his people."
Ya, this "rightwinger" can see that the odds are stacked against "the black guys."
Congratulations America!
Posted by gangpapist at 03/11/2009 @ 11:25pm
The self delusion (or rather, the attempt to delude) is stunning...Republicans are the party of the peole? REALLY?!? Seriously, if your going to say something, go the fiscal conservative route...yeah, Lincoln was a Republican 150 years ago...if you think he would identify with this xenophobic, reactionary group now, you overestimate your ideas(?) at this point in history to a delusional degree...
Posted by dekist at 03/12/2009 @ 02:17am
Is this what kicking the can means?
Michael Steele: Abortion Is An "Individual Choice"
Posted by eniobob at 03/12/2009 @ 05:31am
"#
Keep trying to perpetuate the LIE that yesterdays Demoncrats are now Republicans! Maybe take a history lesson or two!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/11/2009 @ 10:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person"
You mean, Rio Maleducado, like Strom Thurmond, who became a Republican in 1964? Or the harbinger of Barry Goldwater, who ran against the Civil Rights Act and only carried four southern states outside of Arizona. Or Ronald Reagan's using the "state's rights" codeword to open his 1980 in Philadelphia, MS?
Posted by brunowe at 03/12/2009 @ 07:31am
Michael Steele: Abortion Is An "Individual Choice"---Posted by eniobob at 03/12/2009 @ 05:31am
I heard about that.....He's moved from inept to ...SUICIDAL!
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 07:54am
Who was POTUS in the 4th-qtr of 2008?
Posted by !immutable at 03/11/2009 @ 4:28pm
Sec Paulson.
Ask the cons, they will explain it to you.
---
Posted by barry25 at 03/11/2009 @ 5:49pm
Clown boy is back!
Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2009 @ 08:12am
BTW, here's the link to the Steele/abortion story-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/11/ steele-abortion-is-an-ind_n_174092.html
Seriously...this guy is having a bad month...heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 09:11am
Somehow if this was Howard Dean making such headlines Nichols would portray him as a brave outspoken champion of the non-mainstream, ready to take on the establishment, representing the bright new dawn of a political renaissance.
But not Steele.
Is this thinly disguised leftist racism perhaps?
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 03/12/2009 @ 10:48am
Somehow if this was Howard Dean making such headlines Nichols would portray him as a brave outspoken champion of the non-mainstream, ready to take on the establishment, representing the bright new dawn of a political renaissance.
But not Steele.
Is this thinly disguised leftist racism perhaps?
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 03/12/2009 @ 10:48am
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 03/12/2009 @ 10:48am
So does Steele saying that "abortion should be an individual choice for women" fall into the "taking on the establishment" category?
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 10:56am
I don't know, Mask. That statement about abortion is correct, although I'm not sure what you're driving at.
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 03/12/2009 @ 11:06am
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 03/12/2009 @ 11:06am
Well, I just mean the Chairman of the Republican Party just advocated a pro-choice position on abortion...
so I guess Republicans and conservatives should celebrate him "taking on the establishment, representing the bright new dawn of a political renaissance"....right?
Think we'll get a lot of that?
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 11:26am
PRESTERJOHNofASIA,
You asked Mask, above "....I don't know, Mask. That statement about abortion is correct, although I'm not sure what you're driving at......"
I have been on these blogs long enough now to realize that Mask does not drive at anything.
Mask asks questions in order to:
1. Be a pain in the ass.
2. Try to irritate people and get their goat.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 11:28am
What kind of goat do you have SJ?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2009 @ 11:33am
crabwalk,
I do not own a goat but Mask doesn't seem to realize that.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 11:35am
Would you agree that Rush engages in goat baiting?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2009 @ 11:43am
crabwalk,
No. Rush does not go around and act like Mask.
And remember, Mask is lib. There is no substance or support behind any lib position, from Mask or otherwise.
Rush is conservative, and thus the positions are supportable and he has done a good job of articulating them.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 11:46am
Minds work like parachutes, SJ.
I would hate to see your splat.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2009 @ 12:01pm
No substance behind women being human beings?
No substance behind clean air and water?
No substance behind non violent resolution of conflict?
No substance behind food and drug safety?
Fascinating.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2009 @ 12:04pm
bonk
Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2009 @ 12:04pm
Crabwalk,
Women are human beings... so are their unborn children.
Non violent resolution of conflict has in the past sometimes resulted in the conflict not being resolved, and deaths of more human beings. This would have been the case again with Saddam.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 12:11pm
The Left's position is always that the Reps are xenophobic, racist, and hate babies.
But they can't point to any actual policy positions that back this up. It's always about what so-and-so SAID at a rally in Butte in '85.
If the Reps were really the way you self-righteous, guilty rich kids say they are, every one of them snickering at racist jokes on the floor of the Convention, I wouldn't want to hang out with them, but their policies would STILL be better, for blacks, whites, everybody.
You can keep the sanctimony. You can treasure that moment - on election night, when you looked in that AA guy's eyes and felt, like, this deep connection, and tears welled up in your eyes - forever. I'd rather have positive results, for everybody, even if you made me wear an "I'm a racist" T-shirt every day for the rest of my life, which is probably in the program.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 12:11pm
SJCHER...
Newt Gingrich said Rush was "irrational"....
and Michael Steele said abortion is a individual choice for a woman.
I can sit back and relax and let you debate THOSE guys, before you even get to me!
LOL
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 12:18pm
crabwalk,
As far as clean air, water, food safety, etc... you probably remember at the end of the Clinton administration... while Slick was not busy with the fire sale on pardons, he got a regulation through that put a more stringent limit on the amount of arsenic allowed in water. (municipal water for cities and towns, etc).
The amount of arsenic allowed before this was way below any level that would pose any threat to anybody.
So the new Clinton regulation was unnecessary.
The regulation would have put an additional cost burden on providing water.
When George W. Bush became President, he rolled back this regulation, an unnecessary one to begin with.
So what happen next? Of course, the left crucified President Bush for exposing kids to arsenic in water!
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 12:19pm
"The amount of arsenic allowed before this was way below any level that would pose any threat to anybody.
So the new Clinton regulation was unnecessary. "
Not so. The National Resources Defense Council had actually sued the Clinton administration in May 2000 to lower the level. The adjustment of the standard was in response to that. The EPA had originally posed a 5 ppb standard but Clinton set it at 10 as part of a compromise with business interests. The EPAs action was pursuant to a 1996 statute requiring it to conduct new research on arsenic and propose a standard. A statute passed by a Republican Congress.
In fact, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report in mid-2001 calling for a reduction from the old 50 ppb standard.
So there was a legitimate scientific and policy dispute, unlike the actually twisting of science that took place during the Bush administration.
Posted by brunowe at 03/12/2009 @ 1:03pm
snowball666,
The "tax breaks for W and his golf buddies" increased revenue to the Treasury (as tax cuts always do) and grew the economy with increased number of new business start ups and job gains.
These tax cuts helped overcome the economic downturn that began at the end of the Clinton administration and the hit to the economy that occurred as a result of September 11, 2001.
The "insane people" were "put on the street to die" because lib policies caused the advocation of the "rights" of those people. Rules by courts caused municipalities to become unable to force homeless people to stay in shelter and be given help if they refused.
These people had "rights" and thus could do what they wanted, even if it was to their detriment.
People on the left side of the political fence provided a bizzare twist here - leftists advocate that those who are well able to fend for themselves and manage their own affairs and make their own way in life NEED more government control over their lives (for their own good and for the "greater good" - BUT - people who are homeless - who are often that way because of alcohol or drug addiction or mental/psycological problems - must be able to do what they want without interference because they have "rights"!!
It certainly was not Ronald Reagan that brought this about!
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 1:06pm
brunowe,
But you don't answer - whether the level Clinton set was necessary, despite what organization proposed it or who voted on it.
And if it was unnecessary - which was the case - why did the left crucify President Bush?
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 1:10pm
"The "tax breaks for W and his golf buddies" increased revenue to the Treasury (as tax cuts always do) and grew the economy with increased number of new business start ups and job gains. " From http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302 which cites White House budget numbers 2001 GDP 10,128 Revenues 1,991.4
2002 GDP 10,469.6 Revenues 1,853.4
2003 GDP 10,960.8 Revenues 1,782.5
2004 GDP 11,685.9 Revenues 1,880.3 So, in fact, revenues dropped the next two fiscal years, despite a growing economy. According to BLS, unemployment in November 2004 was 5.4%, up from 4.2% when Bush took office.
Posted by brunowe at 03/12/2009 @ 1:33pm
"But you don't answer - whether the level Clinton set was necessary, despite what organization proposed it or who voted on it.
And if it was unnecessary - which was the case - why did the left crucify President Bush?
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person "
On the contrary, I point out that both the NRDC, the EPA and the National Academy of Sciences thought that a level no higher than 10 ppb was necessary. You have simply asserted that it wasn't with no substantiation.
Posted by brunowe at 03/12/2009 @ 1:35pm
Tax cuts for the Pig can stimulate the economy, but Bush should not have kept them in place in time of war.
But the deficit, which will now be squared, then cubed, and grow armpit hair, isn't what f'd us.
It was the Wall Street gangsters that own the Reps and the Dems. Now we've got change: Geithner, a Paulson clone. The Messiah could put one of those Groucho Marx get-ups on Paulson and call him "Shmaulson" and you cultists would bust out the kneepads.
He could appoint the ghost of John Wilkes Booth, the guy who put the salmonella in the peanut butter, a toy poodle, and an inanimate object, to Cabinet posts, and you'd pop the carbon-free bubbly and rub your nipples.
And now he's already bringing back the same policies that wreaked havoc on the hood, and you'll love him for that too.
I know none of you have ever lived in a city, outside the lily-white hipster neighborhoods where you can't find a non-organic parking meter, so you'll probably miss this reference. Amway meetings "look like America" too.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 1:48pm
1st assumption was that Clinton was a "lefty". Look up the DLC.
2nd assumption was that I supported Clinton. We've been through that.
3rd assumption was that Bush decision was based on science. Thanks Brunowe.
Really funny how you don't think Rush engages in baiting. Too funny, too rich.
----
GANGPAPIST, why would Jesus appoint Groucho Marx?
"I know none of you have ever lived in a city, outside the lily-white hipster neighborhoods "
Omniscience does not suit you well, PAPIST.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2009 @ 2:09pm
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 1:48pm
"I know none of you have ever lived in a city, outside the lily-white hipster neighborhoods..."
*yawn* Don't know much, do ya? What's next, going to ask us to complete the sentence, "Say it loud..." ?
Posted by srjenkins at 03/12/2009 @ 2:14pm
Why don't the cons here EVER debate amongst themselves?
I would think that commanche would take jomama to task over China, if Freeman was such a loser.
For a while Bush was The Greatest, yet very few ever talked about his spending, till Obama inherited the mess. Where was the debate amongst the cons over Bush choices
Bush vetoed 14 bills. All others were filled with pork. Where was the outrage?
Looks like many cons actually think abortion is an individual choice, has any other con called them baby killers? Is there room in the Party for such beliefs?
Is the new RNC chair a baby killer?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2009 @ 2:15pm
"leftists advocate that those who are well able to fend for themselves and manage their own affairs and make their own way in life NEED more government control over their lives (for their own good and for the "greater good" -"gangpapist
So, Newt Gingrich is a leftist now.
The POWER!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2009 @ 2:18pm
Arsenic is all natural.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2009 @ 2:20pm
Posted by brunowe at 03/12/2009 @ 1:35pm
Arsenic has a liberal bias! Back in the good ol' days, when I was kid, we used to eat it by the handfuls, put it on cornflakes, and rubbed it in our hair...and we liked it...we LOVED it!
Those pointy-headed leftist marxist socialists at the EPA are just fearmongering!
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 2:25pm
snowball666,
My comment was not "heartless BS". It was fact.
The people who need to be identified as heartless are libs.
They are the ones who, through the judges, perverted the legal system to make sure people had "rights" who really needed help instead.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 2:51pm
crabwalk,
You ask why "cons" don't debate amongst themselves and why there was no "outrage" amongst "cons" about spending during President Bush's administration.
I don't dare try and guess, or assume where you spend your time as you surf the internet, but on the surface it would appear it is not to Conservative web sites.
I can assure you President Bush caught plenty of flak for the level of spending from "cons".
You surely must remember the reaction when he put Harriet Miers in as a nominee for the Supreme Court?
I don't dare try and guess, or assume, where you go as you surf the Internet, but on the surface it does not seem that your "surfing" includes the lanes on the right side of the information superhighway, only the left lanes.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 2:58pm
I can assure you President Bush caught plenty of flak for the level of spending from "cons".----Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 2:58pm
Actually most of it as November 2006 loomed and they saw Congressional chances dimming.
When "times were good" and Karl Rove was promising a "permanent GOP majority"...not so much.
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 3:26pm
I don't how many criticisms I've made of the gangsters and thieves labeled "Republican" in these blogs, only to hear over and over again, "Why don't you... the Reps?"
Consistent thuggery and stupidity across the aisles isn't what I'm going for.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 3:37pm
snowball666,
I read about this issue quite some time ago, but because of the Internet, I was able to come up with some quick "backstory" as you require.
I can plainly see that, the internet source I found was an article from some other sourde posted by a blogger whose "handle" is "Gomer Pyle".
Spare me the jokes. There are only so many hours in a day - it is not worth my time to find this some other way to avoid "Gomer Pyle", knowing most of you libs always declare any Conservative source invalid anyway.
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 02:39 pm Homeless Advocates Must Face Facts by C.J. Carnacchio http://perspectives.com/forums /view_topic.php?id=180914&forum_id=5
(you may need to clean spaces out of the link)
The mentally ill homeless should either be institutionalized, put into the care of family members or legal guardians, or forced, as a condition of being allowed into society, to take the necessary medications to control their illness. Many of the homeless could function in society if only they took their medication. But groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will not allow these measures because they would infringe upon the homeless' civil rights.
But, as psychiatrist/columnist Charles Krauthammer retorted, "For the severely mentally ill, however, liberty is not just an empty word but a cruel hoax. Free to do what? What does freedom mean for a paranoid schizophrenic who is ruled by voices commanded by his persecutors and rattling around in his head?" The ACLU is more interested in defending their right to sleep in parks and bus terminals than actually salvaging their lives. It is precisely this kind of feeble thinking that has led to the idiocy of the "homeless rights" movement.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 4:47pm
But groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will not allow these measures because they would infringe upon the homeless' civil rights.----Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 4:47pm
What's yer view on the ACLU, sj?
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 6:50pm
Mask,
Sorry for the delay in responding.... Rush was not available right away.
Rush told me to tell you that I am not answering your question.
Rush advised me that your question is probably loaded and that I can't win no matter how I answer.
He said that if I say negative about the ACLU then you will post back with something the ACLU did that even Conservatives would agree was good, including even he, el Rushbo.
He also advised me that if I gave a positive comment about the ACLU you would post back and show me how that contradicts something I said on a blog on The Nation in the past.
So I have no answer for you.
That Rush is pretty smart, eh?
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 7:26pm
Posted by brunowe at 03/12/2009 @ 1:03pm
".... The EPA had originally posed a 5 ppb standard but Clinton set it at 10 as part of a compromise with business interests. The EPAs action was pursuant to a 1996 statute requiring it to conduct new research on arsenic and propose a standard...."
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 1:10pm
" But you don't answer - whether the level Clinton set was necessary, despite what organization proposed it or who voted on it.
And if it was unnecessary - which was the case - why did the left crucify President Bush?"
Wow.The EPA thinks it's an appropriate level, but I guess they forgot to check with esteemed arsenic expert, SJ"I ain't got time to look it up"chermak.
"My comment was not "heartless BS". It was fact.", based on???
Ahh.. truthiness. SJ beleives it, so it must be true.
Posted by Malcontent at 03/12/2009 @ 7:45pm
Ahh.. truthiness. SJ beleives it, so it must be true.
Posted by Malcontent at 03/12/2009 @ 7:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Ahhh...but Mal, with SJerk able to quote 'experts' like the blogger 'Gomer Pyle', what need has he of 'proof'?
.
That Rush is pretty smart, eh?
Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 7:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Reminds my of one of my favorite 'old sayings'..."In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
In the land of the SJerks...
...Rush looks like an absolute genius!
heheh
Posted by Lillian at 03/12/2009 @ 8:03pm