Steve Schmidt, John McCain's campaign director in the 2008 presidential election, has some interesting things to say
On the Republican Party:
"It is near-extinct in many ways in the Northeast, it is extinct in many ways on the West Coast, and it is endangered in the Mountain West, increasingly endangered in the Southwest . . . and if you look at the state of the party, it is a shrinking entity."...
"As a political proposition, his [Barack Obama] first 100 days have been successful," he said. "His approval rating is in the 60s, there has been dramatic improvement in the 'right track' number, he's had success . . . at passing legislation, and the Republican Party as a matter of reality in the first 100 days has not done anything to improve its political condition."
On Gay Rights:
Schmidt voiced his support for gay rights at meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group. Schmidt, when referring to the group, said "I just wanted to take a second to come by and pay my respect and the campaign's respect to your organization and to your group. Your organization is an important one in the fabric of our party."
Schmidt referred in positive terms to his lesbian sister and her life partner: "On a personal level, my sister and her partner are an important part of my life and our children's life. I admire your group and your organization and I encourage you to keep fighting for what you believe in because the day is going to come," said Schmidt.
**********************************************
All one has to do is read the comments in my posts to see how out of touch and extreme the Republican Party of today has become. And yet it stubbornly elevates and admires the nutjobs whom a majority of Americans reject--Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck [a particularly toxic and unbalanced extremist.]
How many more centrist Republicans will the party ignore before it realizes it has become a regional party of negativism and clownish politicians who astoundingly support illegal torture AND, in Texas, secession?
Could the Republican Party get any crazier than this?
Oh, wait...
33 comments:
"Centrist Republican" in the GOP?
Thats like letting gays in the military via something called "don't ask don't tell..."
"Nutjobs"
Those are patriotic God fearing Americans who love this country and are trying to protect our God given freedoms from socialists and communists.
They are not nutjobs they are FREEDOM FIGHTERS!
You liberals do not appreciate the sacrifice these freedom fighters have made with their own lives to protect YOUR freedoms!
The Republican party is an anachronism.
Like the Catholic Church, the GOP is stuck in the 8th century, stubbornly incapable of change.
The GOP is destined to go the way of New Coke, hula-hoops, and analogue TV.
On the torture issue:
The only conclusion one can make from the defenders of Bush's torture memos is that they believe the U.S. should torture. If that's how they think, then they're completely alone on this because no elected official or public pundit has come out in support of torture. In fact, both Cheney and Bush clearly said that we do not torture. So, it seems to me that if someone in the government did actually torture (this seems clear), then they did so agains the wishes of Bush, Cheney and every other politician and pundit. Why shouldn't those persons be held accountable if they committed acts that Bush, Cheney and others believe were illegal?
You'll never hear them question the leaders of WWII for doing what was needed to keep us safe, and that included millions of killed civilians. But now we are suddenly above being able to dump water on a guys face for 15 seconds, with full medical staff there monitering it to make sure no harm is done.
The false moral highground is laughable by liberals. We can kill millions of babies but we can't waterboard a mass murderer? This is all meaningless anyway. It's a technique that hasn't been used for 6 years and won't be used again because it's known now. Now they just want partisan blood against the very people that kept them safe.
Obama is just getting started, he's now pushing for the abortion pill to be supplied to minors without parental consent, a pill that floods the body with hormones and has been proven to cause dangerous bleeding.
Obama is PUSHING for the abortion pill? Check your facts.
Zantaz,
Everything you wrote is wrong.
As an ardent supporter of the Democratic Party as anyone on these blogs I take great pleasure in the folly that has beset the Republicans.
Just as Islam was hijacked by thugs for their own nutty ideas. Just as communism was used by thugs as a tool of domination, the Republican Party was hijacked by the neocon cabal for the selfish greed and goofy ideas of the Cheney's and Wolfowitzes.
But my joy will be finite. As usual, it won't be a resurgence of republican ideals or a pretty face like Aaron Schock,Sarah Palin or some other well hyped stooge.
The resurgence will arrive when committment to good governance gives way to insider greed and stupidity. The Democratic hierarchy will be the ones "shitting in their punchbowls." Just as the Republicans shit in theirs with the failed presidency of George W. Bush.
TRUTH 101,
Sadly, you speak the truth.
Michelle Bachmann has to be the most stupid asshole in the HoR. And there are a lot of stupid assholes in that group:
"Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature."
_________________________________________________________
So is feces, but we wouldn't want to have to adjust to an overabundance of it in our environment.
Bachmann:
"Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can't even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that's on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that -- that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth."So is feces, but we wouldn't want to have to adjust to an overabundance of it in our environment.
Nobody is arguing that CO2 isn't natural or necessary. The problem is the balance shift that occurs when there's too much of it.
Is there anybody in the HoR who has racked up more "stupid" points than this woman?
Beth,
You didn't say what made you angry in this post about the Republican Party. All you did was change the subject to Obama, and didn't even back your charge up with a link to my, or someone's, attack.
IOW, your comment doesn't make sense.
If you'd like to elaborate on why this post is irritating you, go to it.
PS. This is an unabashedly liberal blog, with a liberal point of view. Surprise! You don't like liberals. Could that be the source of your irritation?
Also I read in one of your previous postings on your blog that liberals are "polar opposites" with regard to the ideals and values of the Founding Fathers.
That's a pretty large generalization to make about a huge group of people. And you didn't back that accusation up with any evidence for that nasty bit of opinion--that liberals don't believe in the value and ideals of the Founding Fathers.
For some reason, Beth deleted her comment.
She probably saw the error of her way and felt ashamed.
You're welcome back here, Beth. No problem.
No answer from Beth of course! Isn't that typical of a hit and run conservative COWARD. And certainly the work of a hypocritical conservative preaching blogger.
All you have to do is listen to the rhetoric of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and their minions to understand where a twisted mind can get. They are liars and cowards and push their preconceived warn out beliefs on everybody else. In Beth's case it's abortion. I don't think that she has ever had another thought running through her simple mind other than abortion.
Judging from these comments, she has a lot in common with Sean Hannity.
Shaw, after reading through these comments here, I think that maybe you should start a Gallery of Freaks, Weirdos & Nutjobs.. You can start with Beth.
I thought this was worth sharing.
Apologies to those who've seen it. And sorry if it's already on the site.
Ben & Jerry created "Yes Pecan!" ice cream flavor for Obama. They then asked people to send in suggestions for a flavor to commemorate George W. Bush.
Here are some of their favorite responses:
The Grape Depression
Abu Grape
Cluster Fudge
Nut'n Accomplished
Iraqi Road
Chock 'n Awe
WireTapioca
Impeach Cobbler
Guantanmallow
imPeachmint
Good Riddance You Lousy Motherfucker... Swirl
Heck of a Job, Brownie!
Neocon Politan
RockyRoad to Fascism
The Reese's-cession
Cookie D'oh!
The Housing Crunch
Nougalar Proliferation
Death by Chocolate... and Torture
Chocolate Chip On My Shoulder
You're Shitting In My Mouth And Calling It A Sundae
Credit Crunch
Mission Pecanplished
Country Pumpkin
Chunky Monkey in Chief George Bush
Doesn't Care About Dark Chocolate
WMDelicious
Chocolate Chimp
Bloody Sundae
Caramel Preemptive Stripe
Christopher: "The GOP is destined to go the way of New Coke, hula-hoops, and analogue TV."
any bets on that analog TV changeover deadline being pushed up again? DTV is disaster TV. I tried it, and the quality was terrible, and my favorite TV stations were too lazy to bother to change over (so they were not even broadcasting it).
Arthur: Neoconpolitan? Amazing, for a President who was not even a neocon!
I prefer Crawfish Ranch. The world's first shellfish-flavored ice cream.
Forget the George W. Bush ice cream. Have some for George H. W. Bush. Call it "Poppy", and have it filled with poppy seeds. And then watch it get popular, and the drug-test chaos ensues.
Those GWB ice cream flavors made me LOL so hard!!
Arthurstone,
Very funny. Thanks for posting those.
"How many more centrist Republicans will the party ignore. . . ."
"Centrist Republicans" are responsible for the party's state of play today! Who wants lite beer when you can have the real deal with no consequence? Who wants margarine when you can have butter with no consequence?
You mistakenly think that Americans have been given a real choice and that there are sharp distinctions between John McCain and Barack Obama from a voters perspective. Even still 47 million Americans voted against Barry.
Moderate Republicans have been running the show for a long time and deserved to be hammered. They believed that the only way to win was to pander to demographic groups based on some artificial division they've bought into (that Marx sold them). America is not a caste society, intractable and set for life but moderates bought the okey doke.
Question, After George Washington, what president won the largest electoral victories in American history? Hint, it's not a Democrat! Was his approach to pander or to promote a set of universal ideals?
CB,
You are so angry. Why? From where does that bile come?
You profess to be a religious man, but you are one of the most dedicated haters of Obama I've seen on the internet.
There's nothing wrong with calling Mr. Obama out on issues you don't agree with, but one look at your blog shows us that you're more interested in defaming him than opposing his policies.
You've written that he's a megalomaniac. Are you a psychiatrist? How do you know that, except for your out of control hatred for a man you really know nothing about?
And you continue to call him Barry.
That's your passive/aggressive way of dealing with a man you can't confront face to face, so you use the childish method of calling him by a name he once used and then discarded.
Do you call "Bobby" Jindal Piyush, a name he discarded from his youth--his REAL name?
If not, we fully understand what you're about.
Hate.
And Anger.
Get a hold of yourself, CB.
I'm wondering how you can profess to be a dedicated Christian, loving your Lord, and trying to defame a man you don't know.
WWJH?
I tend to call him Pres. Obama. Trying not to get into the lame territory with those who called Bush "Dubya" or Shrub, McCain "McLame", and Clinton "Slick Willie".
Is it so hard to use the President's name?
Shaw,
You didn't deal with my response to your post but that's ok. I'll bite.
Not that you will agree with my perspective or analysis, but I'll give logic and reason one more shot.
What did the slave own? Did the slave own the fruit of his labor or even himself?
The 1st measure the communist wants to implement is the elimination of private property. I won't go through the litany of why Barry is a socialist but let me tell you how he wants to eliminate private property. He wants to raise taxes, a taking, a confiscation of private property. He has said that he wants to redistribute wealth and income, a taking, a confiscation of private property. He wants to impose mandates on employers to provide health insurance, a taking, a confiscation of private property. In the name of the most bogus snake oil "science" he wants to raise additional taxes through cap and tax, a taking, a confiscation of private property.
With these and the entitlements he supports, he will control more of our productive economy than the private sector, enslaving us, not to some plantation owner but to the state.
No one is being denied health care today in America, not even illegals, that is a complete canard. If you look at countries that have adopted socialized medicine however, they do! What Barry and Dems want is to have the power of life and death, they want to be able to ration care. Read Daschle's book if you think I'm smoking crack.
So, my contempt for Barry is not limited to one mistake or error in judgement, I have contempt for his world view. Anyone that wants to limit my freedom, to control me or mine, to put the shackles on me that my forebearers were able to throw off, will get more than just a fight from me!
CB,
He wants to raise taxes,He just gave Americans the largest tax cut in American history, and he raised the taxes on the wealthiest Americans to a percentage that is lower than it was under Reagan.
Obama kept a campaign promise that few Republican thought he'd keep. If this weren't part of a larger package, that would be an enormous story. A liberal Democrat in the campaign promised the biggest tax cut in history. Republicans said it was a complete charade (and many liberals didn't much like it anyway). And the Democrat in his first few weeks delivers the tax cut.
Here's what Dr. Ravi Batra, a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, has to say about "socialism:"
Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."
"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.
Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.
Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.
The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.
How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.
The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?
Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.
Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.
Wake up America and elect leaders with a heart - not those who would tax your unemployment benefits and cut the capital gains tax.So you see, CB, your take on Mr. Obama's socialism is somewhat skewed, and heavily influenced by the blinders you're wearing.
CB: I'm no liberal, but "Barry is a socialist....he wants to eliminate private property."? I don't buy that. He's nowhere near that radical.
And besides, even if he were, he'd get nowhere with any agenda of eliminating private property, as all of the Senate and all but one Representative would oppose him in that.
Shaw said: "He just gave Americans the largest tax cut in American history"
Well, I hope President Barack H. Obama breaks his promise to increase taxes on gasoline. That would hit everyone hard. Like the government permanently imposing the gas situation from last summer. That's one promise that it would be a good idea to break.
I'll admit the ice cream flavors are funny but the real comic here is CB.
Your property is safe CB. And you won't be enslaved anytime soon. Unless you fall behind on your Visa bill. You won't be denied healthcare and your liberty will remain intact.
And you likely won't end these flights of fancy anytime soon.
What an imagination!
Actually not.
John Birch Society circa 1964.
"You won't be denied healthcare and your liberty will remain intact"
As long as we block single-payer and any other attempt to institute a health care monopoly.
Last time I heard, Pres. Obama opposed this also. A good promise to keep.
Shaw,
Let me ask you a simple question. If you pay no taxes, how can you get a tax cut? What tax cut are you talking about? You have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok!
Let me refer you to several economists, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Lee Ohanian, Robert Higgs, Greg Mankiw, Don Boudreaux, Russell Roberts and many others of great repute will more convincingly make the case that his policy preferences and statements are socialist. That's not a battle you can win.
Low taxes? Limited government?
Free markets?
Somalia.
CB,
I can find you as just as many economist who disagree with you. And?
Your claims about Mr. Obama are extreme. Our friend, Arthurstone, I'm afraid is correct.
Even dmarks, who is no liberal sees through your extremist blinders.
Your liberties and private property are in no danger.
You lose the argument with your juvenile insistence on referring to the president by a name he stopped using 20+ years ago.
It points up your bitterness over the fact that Mr. Obama is president.
You have written about your deep and abiding Christian faith on your blog--I believe you have a blog dedicated to it? I just can't reconcile the hatred you hold in your heart with your professed love of Christ.
That's not to say people aren't allowed to hate--lots of people carry this emotion toward Mr. Obama in their hearts. I just don't understand how someone who brags about his deep faith in Christ reconciles it.
It seems to me irrational.
Arthurstone: "Low taxes? Limited government? Free markets? Somalia."
High taxes? Unlimited government? State-controlled markets? North Korea.
Not sure which is better. But at least you can flee Somalia without being shot for it.
Shaw: I disagree with you on most (not all) of Pres. Obama's policies, but I can't think of anything he's done yet that is "socialism" (unless he ends up keeping control of the banks).
dmarks,
I'm no fan of David Brooks' conservatism, but I do respect his intellect, and I find myself agreeing with his observations from time to time.
You should take the time to listen to him talk about Mr. Obama in his interview with Charlie Rose.
http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/190
Even if one doesn't agree with Mr. Brooks, his is a reasoned opinion backed up with thoughtful rationality.
It is much easier and takes much less brain effort to listen to the uninformed blather of a Limbaugh or Hannity than to someone like Brooks.
That's why most of our political discourse is nonsense.
And then there is George F. Will, who recently wrote an entire column in which he ranted about how evil bluejeans are.
I suppose Leonard Pitts is my favorite columnist on the left. I also like David Broder, but I count him as one of those few who is centrist.
Post a Comment