Recent Posts

Republicans

How are Republicans doing at that outreach thing?

by Eric Ferguson on April 7, 2013 · 0 comments

elephantTo answer the question of the title, it’s hard to know what’s going on that we don’t see, but what we do see is, um, well, let’s say there are reasons some people think the Republican definition of “outreach” must be uniquely theirs.

 

For example, in what I assume must have been an audition for the new reality show, “State Legislators are the Craziest People!”, state legislators in North Carolina decided to try a new direction in tentherism by establishing a state religion. Feeling reached-out to, non-Christians? No, they didn’t specify Christianity as the state religion explicitly, but they’re trying to preempt a lawsuit by the ACLU against a county whose board begins public meetings with Christian prayers. I mention that just in case anyone mistakenly thought these Republican legislators meant to institute Zoroastrianism. They’re working under the tenther theory that the 10th Amendment gives states the sovereignty to ignore the rest of the Bill of Rights, especially the establishment clause (“Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion…). How can they take away the right to sue? The right to petition for the redress of grievances is in the First Amendment right next to … oh yeah.

 

…READ MORE

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

One of the factors that will affect Sen. Al Franken and Gov. Mark Dayton’s reelection bids in 2014 is the state of the Minnesota Republican party.

In 2010 Governor’s race, Tea Party activists kicked the annointed candidate Marty Seifert to the curb and endorsed legislator Tom Emmer.

In 2012, Ron Paul supporters, aka Paulbots, took over the MNGOP. They foisted one-term legislator Kurt “Mister Bills” Bills up as their candidate to face Sen. Amy Klobuchar. The MNGOP was so far gone that Mike Parry battled Allen Quist for the Scepter of Crazy and the opportunity to lose badly to Rep. Tim Walz.

These candidates were utter disasters for their party.

This same pattern has occurred across the country. Missouri Tea Partiers made Todd “legitimate rape” Akins their MO-SEN candidate. Indiana Tea Partiers made Richard “God & Rape” Mourdock as their IN-SEN candidate. They and many other Tea Party candidates were miserable failures in the general election.

So Karl Rove has decided to fight back against the grassroot nutjobs that have stolen his party. The Teabagger/Paulbot contingent is promising to not take it lying down (or in any other position for that matter).

Head below the fold for the details (and bring your popcorn) …

Karl Rove blasted some of the “grassroots” Tea Party groups who have declared war on his newest effort to repackage the conservative crap sandwich in a prettier package that “can win elections.” This is the purpose of Rove’s new group, he claims, though Hannity contended he was really protecting incumbents from being primaried by more conservative candidates.

Rove had unkind words for some of the groups who have criticized him for his new Conservative Victory Project, saying that most of them use issues like this to raise funds for their websites, “sucking up the majority of funds on overhead.” Not that he’s wrong about that, but it certainly seems to be evidence of a deep breach inside the Republican party. Malkin was ballistic over Rove’s move, as were others.

Dana Loesch reacted to Rove in real time, tweeting up a storm about how wrong, wrong, wrong Rove was about Todd Akin.

More details over at Daily Kos.

The Teabaggers are furious that Rove wants his party back. They don’t like the top-down control of the party. Rove doesn’t like grassroots.

The big question is how will this play out in Minnesota?

TwoPuttTommy has pulled back the curtain on the inner failure of the MNGOP in his Cooked Books series.

The MNGOP is broke, was nearly evicted and is having trouble fundraising. The strategic mastermind behind their victories in 2010, Michael Brodkorb, was eliminated via a sex scandal.

Traditional and institutional Republicans have promised a bloodbath if necessary to take back their party. Up until now there are no signs of this impending warfare to claim the remnants of the MNGOP.

Now consider that if the old-school Republicans manage to wrest the party from the Teabagger/Paulbot crowd, they could get Karl Rove’s help to win the inevitable primary fight.

If there’s anything left of their party, that is.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Possible vile shenanigans in blue states

by Dan Burns on December 18, 2012 · 0 comments

Get a load of this crap.

Reid Wilson at the National Journal has an extended look at a coordinated GOP scheme to rig the electoral college; even though a prominent attempt died on the vine in Pennsylvania last year, Republicans in Washington are organizing efforts in several blue-leaning states to forge ahead once again. As we’ve written before, these plans typically revolve around splitting a state’s electoral votes by congressional district, which of course is wonderful if you’re the GOP and you’ve drawn the state’s congressional map to your liking. For instance, even though Barack Obama won Michigan handily, Republican control over the mapmaking Mitt Romney prevailed in nine of the state’s 14 districts.

Along with Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan make the most tempting targets because they’re all blue states which (temporarily, we can pray) are completely controlled by Republicans, thanks to the 2010 wipeout.

One of the fundamental lessons of all of human history is that when a certain faction attains the heights of wealth and power, as plutocrats have in contemporary America, they’ll do anything to stay there.  Vote suppression, unlimited election spending…there’s no reason not to expect even worse.  It will only end when conservatism itself is rendered politically, economically, and socially impotent as viable ideology.  That needs to be the goal.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

For weeks the White House has been telling Speaker Boehner and the Republicans that these budget negotiations wouldn’t move an inch until they spell out which specific federal spending cuts they need to do a deal.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress point out that they’ve already voted for 1.6 trillion dollars in spending cuts. The White House said “no” to GOP proposals to cut Medicare and Social Security. So what the hell kind of cuts are Republicans looking for, to get this deal done?

Now we know, because Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just told us. The thing that’s stopping the GOP from signing an agreement that will prevent a tax hike on the American middle class is: a mechanical squirrel. According to Senator McConnell, the mechanical squirrel’s name is “Robo-Squirrel.”

(WARNING: What follows is a real news story. I did not make this up. C-SPAN has video of this, actually happening. See the following:)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the Senate floor on Tuesday to blast Democrats for spending $325,000 educating students with a “robo-squirrel” project…

(CONTINUED)

…”Get this, taxpayers also just spent $325,000 on a robotic squirrel named robo-squirrel,” the Kentucky Republican complained…

“Don’t you think he could put together spending cuts that at least – at least – includes robo-squirrel?” McConnell opined. “We’re still waiting.”

THAT’S what’s stopping Republicans from signing an agreement that will prevent America from going off a “fiscal cliff?” Robo-Squirrel? God D@%N his bushy-tailed little android rodent A**! (I mean Robo-Squirrel, not McConnell.)

Listen: I’m only gonna say this once. If that’s what it takes to get Republicans back to the table to stop tax hikes on working class American families: give McConnell his head on this Robo-Squirrel thing. I don’t care how cute he is–throw Robo-Squirrel under the bus, Mr. President.

“You’re a hard man,” you say to me. And maybe you’re right. But I value my country and my fellow citizens far more than the continued existence of some buck-toothed, nut-hoarding cyborg I’ve never even met. And I won’t apologize for that.

So throw Robo-Squirrel under the bus–or into the garbage disposal, or wherever one throws varmint automatons.

It’s not like we can’t replace him once he’s in the recycling and McConnell’s satisfied. We can replace Robo-Squirrel easily–*after* the Republicans have signed off on tax hikes for their wealthy owners.

I’ll go further. If the President agrees to ditch Robo-Squirrel: I, myself, will pay for a replacement robot squirrel!

“WHAT?” you exclaim. (And you’re absolutely right.) “You are offering to put up $325,000 of your own money–to build a replacement Robo-Squirrel? Are you NUTS?”

No, I am not, I answer, coolly adjusting my cuffs. “For you see… the federal government did not (as Senator McConnell alleges) spend $325,000 on Robo-Squirrel. Nor did the taxpayers of the United States. Observe:”    

San Diego State University spokesperson Greg Block recently told News10 that the actual cost of robo-squirrel was only a few hundred dollars and the rest of the grant went to supporting students (in fact, to the education and training of thirty four students.)

“A small part of the money was spent on building the squirrel, the rest was spent on the students,” Block said. “This is how National Science Foundation grants work.”

A few hundred dollars–a mere bag of shells, if that’s the ransom Republicans demand in return for preventing a tax hike on middle class America.
I will gladly pay a few hundred dollars, if McConnell and other conservatives can be bought so cheaply.

But all this begs the questions: what kind of idiot really believes the federal government spends $325,000 to build one mechanical squirrel? And how did that idiot–and idiots like him–get into the United States Senate? Where they seek to evade the most essential responsibility of leadership–the duty to make and take responsibility for hard choices–by spreading myths about robot squirrels?

LINK: This news item (legendarily entitled “McConnell lashes out at ‘robo-squirrel’ on Senate floor”) can be viewed at Raw Story:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201…

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

What’s the deal with anti-Agenda 21 ranting?

by Dan Burns on December 10, 2012 · 2 comments

Minnesota State Senator Dave Brown (R-Becker) – for whose opponent, Sally Knox, I had the privilege of voting in November – is apparently still sunk in weird fanaticism regarding some pretty innocuous suggestions from the UN.

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels. The “21″ in Agenda 21 refers to the 21st century. It has been affirmed and modified at subsequent UN conferences.

Note:  ”…non-binding, voluntarily implemented…”  But in reality, undoubtedly just cover for a new hippie world order, with brutal penalties for meat eaters and forced urination into reclaimable water toilets like on the space station.

What has me kind of nonplussed, is what on earth conservatives think that they’re accomplishing by targeting Agenda 21 like this.  I’d wager a considerable sum that if I asked the Republicans that I know, few, if any, would have a clue as to what the big deal is.  To get the righties going, you need to give them something really in-your-face – like an African-American, elected and reelected by ACORN, in the White House.  I just don’t see UN-bashing getting the job done, these days.

In other words, if a faction of conservatives, in Minnesota and elsewhere, wants to keep obsessing about this, that’s fine and dandy with me.  Have at it.  

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 2 comments }

Those of you betting that “Michele Bachmann’s national influence is over, post-election:” you guys scored big today.

Senator Jim DeMint, a high profile “Teavangelical” hero and ally of Bachmann–announced today that he is retiring. Weird, because: US Senators serve six year terms, and DeMint was just re-elected to a second term two years ago.

With four years remaining in that term and a safely conservative seat to run for again in 2016, DeMint has no obvious personal political motivation to leave the Senate now, immediately. People are giving “official” explanations (discussed below)–but they’re not credible explanations.

So it’s a stunner for a powerful Senate ultraconservative to decide that “this huge budget, tax hike, big government battle”–is the perfect moment to abandon ship and his career-long fight against the liberals.

Conclusion one: DeMint thinks Republicans are about to lose this battle and approve tax hikes. And he’s right; yesterday Speaker Boehner announced that he would approve some tax hikes and they would hit “guess who, the rich.” DeMint doesn’t want to be around when that happens and the Senate approves it–so he’s fleeing the scene.

Conclusion two: Better to flee to a conservative “city of refuge,” than to stick around in office looking impotent and useless, as conservative control of US policy caves in all around you. Thus, DeMint is leaving to take a top spot at the conservative policy gestation laboratory–the Heritage Foundation.

DeMint is “doing a Sarah Palin”–running out on his duties as an elected official before he gets tangled up in any more ‘votes of record.’ If it’s all about their money and career, Palin and DeMint were right to flee. Here’s why:
(CONTINUED)
If you depart office before the tough votes are taken and the policy outcomes are decided–you can sit on the conservative sidelines and criticize the game of Republicans who do have to govern via compromise. Choosing to sit on the sidelines is cowardly, spineless. But a big name conservative can make good money doing that–and keep his or her reputation “as an uncompromising, loud-mouthed conservative” intact.

There’s good precedent for this strategy. Ronald Reagan didn’t get traction as a conservative candidate for president until after he left the governor’s office in California. So long as he was out of office during the seventies, there were no “official” Reagan decisions for opponents to attack. Once Reagan re-entered private life, he was free to pretend to be whatever kind of conservative suited his political ambitions at the moment. He could claim to be hardline conservative when speaking to conservatives, and could deny he was a hardline conservative when he debated Carter–because there were no recent government policy decisions to hold against him.

Ditto Romney in the last election (he could claim to be anything, because he’d been out of government so long.)

Romney and Palin’s fate and reputations show that the strategy doesn’t always work. It’s not fail-safe. It’s just a path of possible political survival for ambitious conservatives faced with liberal times. Stick around in office while liberals are winning to fight a principled fight for small government: you acquire the track record and reputation of a “loser.” But if you leave office and run out on the fight in government when the liberals are winning–you may have a comeback, a shot at being “another Reagan.”

We’re facing liberal times in American government. The economy is positioned for growth, and the Dem White House will get credit for that. Fox News announced that it’s sending Karl Rove and Dick Morris into remission for now. Rubio (proposed as the next savior of the national GOP) just admitted that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona just punched a reporter who asked her a question about climate change (Really, that just happened. Google it.)

And Obama’s approval rating just reached a three year high. And Boehner is exiling tea party congressmembers to non-factor committee assignments. And the GOP Congress’ surrender to Obama will cripple current GOP officeholders, making them vulnerable in the next primaries.

But I put Michele Bachmann’s name in the headline of this post. Bachmann and DeMint were political Siamese Twins when it came to the tea party and conservative evangelical positions. It must trouble her to see DeMint deserting a sinking ship. Other Bachmann allies remain in the House, but they’re being marginalized.

She’s in danger of sticking around in office to cast two more years of impotent tea party votes–thus acquiring that “loser” reputation among conservatives that DeMint and Palin manage to duck by leaving office.

So score another one this week, for the political junkies who are convinced that “Bachmann’s over.”

LINK: The Kos on the DeMint resignation…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…  

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 3 comments }

GOP prepares for budget battle fail: executions and exiles

by Bill Prendergast on December 5, 2012 · 0 comments

Good omens for Democrats, appearing right now. The outcome of the current D.C. budget battle will determine American domestic policy for the foreseeable future. The GOP leadership seems to be preparing the way for surrender to the White House.

1) Yesterday Speaker John Boehner and the GOP Steering Committee ordered the secret executions of some of the most conservative members in Congress (transferring these members from influential committees to non-factor assignments.) Most GOP congressmembers weren’t even informed of the executions until after they took place.

2) The Tea Party movement is also conducting a purge. Yesterday Dick Armey announced his resignation from Freedomworks, a key tea party organization that he’s been leading for years.

Freedomworks was critical to organizing and promoting the tea party as national movement. Former GOP House Majority Leader Armey was not only its leader; he was the tea party pipeline to senior Republicans in Congress.

In fact, Armey’s establishment Republican presence in the Tea Party and Freedomworks was often a problem. It was never clear whether Armey was herding establishment Republicans to benefit the Tea Party, or herding the Tea Party to benefit establishment Republicans.

But now he’s been purged, and that’s a good omen for Democrats…
(CONTINUED)  
…because Armey’s departure is a sign that the Tea Party is more marginal in DC politics. (And Armey has absolutely soaked them for millions of dollars, with his greedhead retirement package.) Armey’s loyalists at Freedomworks were also purged.

3) Another good omen: This week Grover Norquist’s message changed. Two weeks ago Norquist was all over the headlines telling America “no Republicans are going to cave” on his no-new-taxes pledge. But this week he’s got an entirely different message: threatening all the Republicans who are in fact caving. Norquist is promising a “Tea Party 2.0″ that will rise and punish the traitors.

Thus: if there is a “next” version of the Tea Party coming up–it will be even angrier! Because if it’s not under the control of the Republican establishment, and really challenges them: it won’t receive as much funding, organizational resources, or free media. That will make the next version of the tea party absolutely rabid.

4) Threats of political reprisal from Norquist, the Tea Party, and conservatives? Honey badger don’t care, says John Boehner. He can cave to the Dems–again, publicly–and retain the leadership.

Columnist Greg Sargent at WaPo points out: last time around, Boehner took the Tea Party and conservative line and vowed that Republicans would not cave to Dems on extending the payroll tax cut.

But they did! And Boehner’s still at the top of the Republican Congress, after breaking his vow. He’s no Richard Lugar. So the theory is that he can hand the Dems another win here–and survive.

5) At Time Magazine, Michael Grunwald says that Republicans are “full of it,” they’ve been “full of it” for years–and it’s time for straight news reporting media to stop pretending that they’re not.

It’s irresponsible reporting. Mainstream media outlets don’t want to look partisan, so they ignore the BS hidden in plain sight, the hypocrisy and dishonesty that defines the modern Republican Party…
…we’re not supposed to be stenographers. As long as the media let an entire political party invent a new reality every day, it will keep on doing it. Every day.

Yeah: we say that here, every day. Grunwald gives lots of examples of Republicans and conservative “inventing new realities, every day.” But what should mainstream media editors and reporters be doing?

Grunwald thinks it would be nice if the press would weave the facts about Republican “reality flip-flops” into their straight news reporting. That would be nice for the public, if the press stopped pretending that their latest BS differed from their immediately preceding BS.

The “fiscal cliff” stuff is just the latest example of a press fail. That’s a good omen, that someone at Time magazine is pointing that out.

LINKS:
Boehner purges conservatives:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/g…

Dick Armey out of Freedomworks:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

WaPo says Boehner can cave to Obama without personal consequences:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Grunwald: GOP’s full of it; report that
http://swampland.time.com/2012…

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Michele Bachmann: it’s quiet… too quiet…

by Bill Prendergast on December 2, 2012 · 15 comments

Is she really “over”–as some commenters have suggested to me lately? Is she really spent as a national force, in the aftermath of this year’s election?

There’s a huge budget battle topping the headlines hourly, right now. That topic is classic Bachmann meat-and-potatoes–tax hikes, big government spending, welfare state entitlements, the national debt and deficit, the Constitution and the proper role of government…

But she’s not chiming in this time; not adding her latest loony lies, smears, and conspiracy theories to the headlines.

Does her conspicuous absence that mean that she’s “over?” Has the GOP establishment finally figured out how to shut her up? Does her post-election invisibility mean that the Christian Right and conservative media dropped her? (To be clear: if they have dropped her, that’s the end of Michele Bachmann as a force in national politics.)
(CONTINUED)
Without the regular headlines and the conservative broadcasting appearances, Bachmann’s done as a national demagogue and as a national political force. No national media presence means no ability to promote sign off on right wing nut candidacies around the country. And no media presence means no national fan base, and thus an end to the now-legendary money stream that comes from that national fan base.  

Media presence makes or breaks Bachmann. Bachmann and her mentors have known that all along, that’s why they spent nine years building that media presence for her.

Since 2007 she’s rarely been out of the headlines, using the news to float the crazy stuff. Reacting to that, some liberals and progressives insisted that she was too nutty and too extreme to become a national player in American politics.

They were wrong. Her national following and influence grew (concurrently with the rise of the tea party.)  And more “Bachmann-like” candidates (Christian Right and tea party types) began to enter into national, state, and local office.

Powered by the crazy right wing paranoids who love Michele Bachmann: the GOP was able to reverse their post-Bush/Cheney political decay and take back the US Congress from Democrats in 2010. And they still retain the House; some crackpot Bachmann types were defeated–but many survive and keep the party anchored in the extreme right.

But in the three weeks following the 2012 elections…comparative silence and invisibility, for one of their chief heroes and inspirations.

I’ve since suggested a reason for Bachmann’s low media profile. Despite her services to the conservative movment, Bachmann’s been passed over for leadership posts and influential committee assignments because the senior GOP distrusts her. She regularly used her national media spotlight to suggest that they’re compromising weenies, compared to her.

So I speculated that Bachmann’s keeping quiet to show the Washington GOP that she can keep quiet, function as a GOP team player–and thus can be trusted with a seat on a key policy making committee; one that controls House legislation, or taxes and budget.

But I could be wrong about that. Maybe she really is “over.”

Prior to this year’s election the Washington GOP (Speaker Boehner and company) has never had the power to “turn off” her career. They can do that to most junior legislators, via denunciation and killing off measures that benefit their districts. The establishment GOP couldn’t deal Bachmann out that way: her media spotlight meant that she wasn’t dependent on successful legislation for survival or funding. And an attempt to marginalize her would have earned the GOP establishment the wrath of the Christian Right.

In the wake of election results, establishment Republicans in the Nixon/Rockefeller/Dole tradition are riding high in the party for the first time in a long time. The loss of the White House and Republican seats is generally attributed to GOP domination by “the crazies,” the extreme right. The crazies brought the GOP back into power in Congress in 2010, but now their agenda is costing the GOP seats and control of government. And conventional wisdom after the election says that the GOP will continue shrinking so long as the party has to keep kow-towing to the will of the crazies.

What better way to end that, than for the GOP leadership to keep the chief crazy out of the media during the “fiscal cliff” battle–and afterwards?

That’s one possible explanation for Bachmann’s current quietude. But it’s a flawed explanation. It’s unlikely that Bachmann would follow an order to “shut up” if it came from the GOP leadership alone.

She would follow an order to “shut up” if it came from the leaders of the Christian Right. They’ve always had the power to end Bachmann’s national career. Maybe they’ve decided to “turn her off”–at least for now–after concluding that her high-profile extremism (and negative press) no longer serves their interests.

The Christian Right isn’t “done.” They control too many seats and influence too many GOP primary contests. Regional control of elections is power; their candidates continue to survive and win regionally. The glory days of “making George W. Bush president” are gone, but they won’t leave American politics–there’s simply too much money and power at stake.

But maybe Christian Right leaders have decided that this particular protege has accumulated too much baggage. Maybe they’ll decide that that they can do better with “new faces”–proteges without so much negative media baggage, able to present a broader,re-tooled message.

That’s three possible explanations for her current low profile in the media. Shutting up because she’s angling for a more powerful committee assignment; shutting up because the leadership has finally figured out how to make her shut up; shutting up because the Christian Right leaders told her to.

Bachmann entered this year’s race with an extraordinary national fundraising advantage; as a three-term Republican incumbent running in the most conservative district in Minnesota. Even so, she barely survived an election in a plus-seven Republican district–and had to raise and spend nearly 20 million to do so. She was even compelled to back off the tea party stuff and campaign as a “bi-partisan” politician (a laughable pose for Bachmann.)

She’s weak. And she’s through as a national player if she isn’t allowed to re-enter the media spotlight.

But how will we know if Bachmann’s really “over,” as a national political figure?

She’ll tell us. If she comes back into the headlines with another crazy smear, or if she returns to regular appearances on Fox and conservative broadcasting, introduced again as “a conservative to be admired:” she’s not over.

But if she continues to lay low in the media–she is so over.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 15 comments }

I’ll bet it’s easier to negotiate with terrorists than with conservative Republicans:

Here’s House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday morning, reiterating the latest demand that keeps cropping up from the Republican leadership: That President Obama lay out his spending cut proposals, while Republicans refuse to say what they want to cut.

(VIDEO) BOEHNER: It’s time for the President and congressional Democrats to tell the American people what spending cuts they’re really willing to make.

(Boehner then says that the GOP has already offered Obama and the Dems a “menu” of cuts to choose from: the entitlement cuts Republicans proposed last year and the year before.)

REPORTER: So your 2011 position still stands, then? Are you still offering–those talks from 2011, is that still the basis here?

BOEHNER: Listen, I’m not gonna get into the details, but it’s very clear what kind of spending cuts need to occur. But we have no idea what the White House is willing to do.

Actually, they do know what the White House is willing to do. The White House has made a concrete proposal:
…avoid an automatic across-the-boards tax hike on all Americans in January
…by approving a Senate-passed bill to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class…
…while raising tax rates on the wealthy.

Now Republicans (whose political fortunes depend on the good will of the rich) may not like that White House proposal. But they can’t pretend that the White House hasn’t made any proposal.

If conservative Republicans were serious about wanting to resolve the crisis and at the same time protect the middle class: they’d present the White House, Democrats and the American people with a list of specific demands that would get a deal done. They won’t do that; Boehner and his party “don’t want to get into details.”

It’s cowardice. The Republicans and conservatives –”the party of personal responsibility”–wants to avoid the personal political accountability that comes with a front page demand for specific cuts to specific entitlements.

It’s kind of funny. Boehner’s here on video deploring a lack of “leadership.” So the ironies here are multiple. First: the president has already “gone first,” making the no-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class proposal above. Second: Boehner–a “non-leader” following along with a conservative party line–is criticizing others for failing to lead(!) Third: Boehner and the Republicans don’t even have the spine to tell the president and the American people their demands.

Which makes negotiation on demands and resolution of the tax and budget crisis pretty much impossible–right?
(CONTINUED)
We’re facing an imminent deadline. In that situation, you don’t come to a negotiating table time and time again saying: “The middle class tax break you offer is not enough. Why don’t you present the public with your guess about our specific demands. (We’ll tell you if you get it right.) And by the way–if you won’t play it that way: we’ll let taxes on the middle class go up.”

Spineless, and also pointless if the GOP’s object is casting blame for failed entitlement cuts and failed budget negotiations. Pointless, because if the Republicans fail to present their demands publicly this month–the Bush tax cuts expire and taxes go up across the boards; on rich people too. Rich backers won’t be happy if their puppets deliver that performance.

Neither will American middle class voters. Because in an effort to protect the rich: Republicans are holding the middle class hostage, publicly–after decades of claiming to be the party that “protects the middle class.”

LINK:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 9 comments }

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting kind of sick of reading stuff like this, the last two weeks. (The emphasis in bold is mine):

Despair has led many Republicans to question their earlier confidence that America is a “center-right country.” … What the country does not have is a center-right party that explains how to act on these (conservative) impulses to improve the national condition.– Ramesh Ponnuru, Senior Editor of the National Review.

“I feel very comfortable with where the Republican leaders are right now…We should be much more confident. We should emphasize growth and do a better job spreading the message to all voters. — Grover Norquist, the “no new taxes pledge” guy, 11/23/12

If Republicans want to stop taking losing positions on issues, they need to find a way to downplay those things they believe strongly in despite their unpopularity and to give up those things they don’t really care about– Greg Sargent, Washington Post columnist, 11/23/12

See what they’re saying? The problem is not with the right’s political beliefs or agenda. All the Republicans and conservatives have to do to come back is: do “a better job of explaining,” “a better job of explaining the message,” of “downplaying the things they believe in strongly(!),”
(CONTINUED)
Got that? And I only gave you three examples. I’ve been reading day after day of stuff like that from political columnists, conservatives, and Republicans–for weeks now. Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Rick Santorum (Santorum said the problem Republicans had this election was that Americans didn’t want to “buy the box” conservatism came in. Seriously, he said that.)

You see: the election results and demographic trends mean that media conservatives, the Christian Right, and the teabaggers can no longer argue that they are the ones who really represent “the American people.” Republicans can’t even argue that America’s actually a “center-right” country, any more.

Those are the new premises that Republican leaders and conservative experts seem to agree on, post-repudiation. Most of them also agree about the proposed cure.

And their proposed cure is not to change the conservative agenda to catch up with reality. Rather than change (or even moderate!) the program of the right: the conservative and media experts are trying to convince their audiences that the way for Republicans to return to national prominence is explain better, spread the message better, get a new “box”–and at the same time downplay what they actually believe.

“Brother conservatives! From now on, the GOP agenda will be a secret agenda! No more Republican primary debates where voters are offered a choice of eight liars and loonies all trying to out-kook each other! No more telling people you think that Rush Limbaugh is a great American!”

“Conservatives, stifle your real opinions and stop shouting “let him die!” when the talk turns to health care! Despise the majority of your countrymen, but do so in secret–our very survival depends on it!”

 

Conservative leaders and mainstream media spent the first part of this year making wildly inaccurate predictions about the demise of the Obama administration. Then they spent much of this year promoting wildly inaccurate polling about the preferences of Americans. And now conservative leaders and mainstream media will spend the remainder of this year: making wildly inaccurate statements about how to save the Republican Party from national irrelevancy.

So let’s ignore them for a second and get back to reality. If the GOP fails to reform and dries up and marginalizes into regional obscurity this very week: nobody outside the ranks of the regular GOP would miss it at all. The country would go on just fine without a GOP: and a new “anti-tax” party–theoretically opposed to liberalism but more moderate in agenda–would be created out of its ashes within that same week.

We know that because America’s seen the demise of major political parties before. We’ve seen it happen more than once: when a major American party loses its relevance to the policy debate and sufficient popular support, it becomes extinct. And a new party (which often includes some of the leaders and backers of the old, now-extinct party) takes its place. This is in fact how the Republican Party was born, prior to the Civil War.

So the problem is not that America will become a “one party” state if the GOP really does go the way of the dinosaur. A one-party America won’t happen; there will always be enough eager billionaires, multi-millionaires and angry cranks to form and fund an effective opposition party.

The real problem is merely a career problem, and that career problem affects only a tiny minority of Americans. The people who have a personal stake in selling paranoid right wing politics to Americans…will lose their power, money and careers if the Republican Party changes its right wing agenda in order to stay politically relevant.    

National conservative pundits, broadcasters, authors, “scholars,” “experts,” activists…they’re gone, if the GOP adopts a relevant agenda in order to stay politically relevant. How about all those Republican politicians who mouth conservative rhetoric in order to win or keep office? If the GOP does moderate–those guys become strictly regional, no significant influence except at the margins, and no chance at all of appointment to national leadership.

It’s the people who’ve made their careers spouting the right wing agenda who’d be finished nationally–if the GOP moderates its current right wing agenda. That’s why those same opportunists and liars are sweating right now, telling everyone who’ll listen: “It’s not the right wing agenda! Really! Americans actually love our right wing agenda! All we gotta do is “fine tune” the message a little–a new “box!” No! Don’t replace us with a new set of propagandists! PLEASE!”    

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 37 comments }