More GOPpier than thou
Earl has argued in the past that the White House has been in error, strategically, in framing itself as being in a battle against Rush Limbaugh, as Earl feels this has been boosting Limbaugh's standing and ratings.
But I think Dick Cheney's public support of Limbaugh and castigation of moderates like Colin Powell, noted here, is exactly why the White House is delighted by the "us against Rush" approach. The GOP will win national elections when they include people who aren't just ardently pro-life and pro-torture and anti-progressive, and Colin Powell is one of the few people who can model the kind of big tent that the GOP needs. So Cheney is now as happilly hapless an aide to the White House as Rush has been.
Democrats' strategy may to be to draw conservative zealots to the precipice and dare them to take flight; and once they've fallen, Dems will then have a greater chance to work with the moderates. The strategy does have risks, though.
The Republican party can pretty much kiss national politics good-bye if they are going to continue to be the party that pushes away everyone who won't fall in line with the now controlling, less than tolerant Southern "Dixiecrat" Bible Nazi base. If they fail to overcome this affliction, they better start planning to have their next national convention at the Holiday Inn Express out by the airport in Biloxi.
Switching to politics now... keep dreaming, both of you. Your characterization of those who would attempt to rein in the federal government is exactly the kind of rhetoric (more on that below) that will continue to build support for the kind of GOP you "experts" claim won't work. It is utterly hilarious that what you think the GOP should be is... the Democrats. That's really really funny. I didn't hear this kind of asinine rhetoric when Bush won. I didn't hear anyone saying how the Democrats just needed to be more moderate, be more like the Republicans. In fact, when Democrats like Lieberman stepped out of the Democrat "small tent" they were not treated very kindly by their "own."
Anyway. I don't suppose you care to comment on the appropriate-ness of Wanda Sykes' comments being so d**n funny to our commander in chief? I look forward to her apology, a la that golf commentator.
As for your inflammatory rhetoric. Anti-progressive? When progressive is defined as moving leftward away from what had made this country strong and great, then yeah. We prefer to call it pro-American. Ha ha. As for pro-torture. Come ON Rob. Whatever one may think of the techniques used by "our side" in the war on terror, they are sissy stuff in the big picture. How about, anti-terrorist? See, my terms are a lot more accurate and descriptive. It's all in how one frames the discussion, is it not?
Oh, and actually, the GOP does not need any help from Democrats in deciding how the party will go forward. But thanks anyway.
>>That's really really funny. I didn't hear this kind of asinine rhetoric when Bush won.
That, Diane, is because you have very selective hearing.
I'm not a Republican, but one of my pet peeves concerns uber liberals like David Long referring to Republicans, or conservatives in general, as Nazis or fascists. How does someone who believes in small government, free enterprise, and individual rights qualify as a fascist? David, if you really want to know what a fascist looks like, I strongly suggest you look in a mirror.
Also, Democrats are making a big mistake by flexing their puny muscles and thinking they have forever defeated the Republicans. (The GOP is probably guilty of once doing the same vis-a-vis the Democrats.) There is plenty of evidence to suggest that America is still a mostly right-of-center country. I can't help but think back to 1964. The Democratic Party was then much stronger vis-a-vis the Republicans than it is today. Yet not only did the Democrats lose the White House four years later, they lost to Richard Nixon, who had lost two consecutive elections and had been out of politics for eight years. Nothing lasts forever.
>> I don't suppose you care to comment on the appropriate-ness of Wanda Sykes' comments being so d**n funny to our commander in chief?
Let's see. Robert Gibbs, Obama's spokesperson, said that 9/11 is better left to reflection, not to comedy. I myself think it crossed a line needlessly. Will that suffice? If not, read this, and get back to me when you're willing to condemn both a marginal Sykes and the de facto head of the Republicans who tells black callers to "pull the bone out of your nose":
http://tinyurl.com/q6um84
Wanda Sykes' comedy routine at the White House Correspondent's Dinner was really offensive. In it, Sykes suggested that conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is supported by Hamas, and that Islamists are "constantly issuing Limbaugh talking points." She joked about terrorists supporting conservatives in general, suggesting that recent violent events in Iraq are attempts by terrorists to swing the upcoming midterm elections in favor of Republicans.
Then she got really personal. She joked that Limbaugh was a racist who doesn't want black people to "escap[e] the underclass." She accused him of being responsible for killing "a million babies a year," and aired her friend's theory that Limbaugh himself was a terrorist attack," a followup to 9/11. She also, most disgustingly, said that if conservatives kept apologizing to Limbaugh, they'd eventually contract "anal poisoning." She wondered when Republicans would finally stop "bending over and grabbing their ankles" for Limbaugh, and finally concluded that Limbaugh was just a "bad guy."
Oh wait. Wanda Sykes didn't say any of these things. These are things Rush Limbaugh has said about Obama or other Democrats in the past year, the kind of statements few reporters found offensive enough to write about, despite the fact that most of them were said with the utmost seriousness. And while Sykes is a mere comedian whose influence on the Democratic Party is negligible, Limbaugh's influence in the party is so great that Republican leaders can't even criticize him without having to issue apologies after the fact.
Diane, it's not just weasely moderates like Rob and liberals like David and DLC third-way "new Democrats" like myself who think that the GOP needs to broaden its appeal or risk irrelevance. This is (was) the view of people like Gen. Powell and Jack Kemp.
GOP Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois said today on NPR that suburban middle-class Americans care about the economy, education, health care, and the environment, and (implied) less so about certain core social issues which motivate religious conservatives. Are these voters that the Republicans ought to care about? Can they win, much less govern, if they ignore how their brand is perceived, particularly among the undeclared? (NPR also stated that only 1 in 5 voters self-identifies as Republican!). Sen Jim DeMint (SC) seems to think not: he'd rather have 30 honest-to-goodness "real" conservatives than 60 wimpy ones; or maybe this is to be the fast before the feast.
Is there room in today's GOP for Rep. Kirk, for Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist, for Ahnold, for Arlen Specter? What will Republicans do if moderate Sens. Snowe and/or Collins are either defeated or forced into a Specter-esque Hobson's choice?
Republicans need a Tony Blair type of figure, someone to pick up the fragments and cement them back into something recognizably conservative but not hopelessly out of touch. John talked about the Democrats overplaying their hand; but their best weapon at present is simply being something other than Bush/Cheney republicanism. And every time someone like V.P. Cheney opens his mouth, it smooths their path a little more.
Consider folks like Montana Sen. Jon Tester. A rancher, pro-gun, fiscal moderate-to-conservative, with traditionally Western views about land use, development, urbanization, etc. He's a Democrat. Maybe the GOP can afford to lose a few Philadelphia suburbs, but when the Democrats' tent starts including people like him, the GOP might be able to make do with huddling under an awning somewhere...
This thread is all over the place. In any event, I'm going to make one point and one observation. As far as the unfunny Wanda Sykes is concerned, the real issue is not Rush Limbaugh, in my opinion, but the apparent fact that making comedy out of 9/11 is acceptable. Sykes is hardly the first "comedian" to make light of 9/11 and probably won't be the last. I can't help but think about the families of the 2,974 innocent civilians who died on September 11, 2001 - I seriously doubt they find any humor in 9/11 jokes.
However, I do find some humor in the New Left - the liberals elected a radical left-winger as their president, they've nearly cornered the market on hate, and now they're offering pro bono consulting services to the oppostion party suggesting that it become more moderate. I'm not a social conservative, so I wouldn't mind seeing some moderation out of the GOP, but this sort of advice coming from the New Left is quite ironic.
Yeah John that was exactly my point in thanking Rob and David for their helpful input. I whole-heartedly welcome and stand alongside anyone who small government, free enterprise, and individual rights. I am not closing the "tent" to anyone of this nature -- I simply perceive that the comments of those bemoaning the size of the tent tend to be aimed at those who have something to also say on social issues. Those conservatives deserve their place in the tent, also. In any event, the tent does not have room for those who simply vote with the Democrats and say they're Republican. There's lots of room in there for everyone else, in my opinion.
Diane - Less and less people seem willing to climb into a tent in which doctrinaire rightists, fanatic religionists and greedy corporate manipulators also seem to be using as a latrine, especially with the massive bakery consuming gas passer, Rush Limbaugh, fouling the air within.
You know, I've been a registered Republican for a long time, and I voted for W in 2000 and HW in '88. Thanks for the typecasting, though.
Rob... my mistake!
David... poetic input, as always.