Um...Riiiiiiiiiight.
wesmorgan1This is just too funny. From CNN:
"We are going to take this President on with class, we are going to take this President on with dignity," Steele will say. "This will be a very sharp and marked contrast to the shabby and classless way that the Democrats and the far left spoke of the last President."
The RNC meeting wraps up on Wednesday with a scheduled vote on a controversial resolution that calls on Democrats to rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party."
I didn't edit that clip; the points are as the author presented them.
Come on, guys - "with class...with dignity...YOU SOCIALISTS SHOULD CHANGE YOUR NAME"? Really? It's like that old Sesame Street song; one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong...
To be fair, Steele has spoken publicly against the "rename your party" resolution; this just illustrates the broad divide facing the GOP.
wesmorgan1
Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee releases his poetry mocking Nancy Pelosi. Sometimes it's just...breathtaking.
wesmorgan1
Our fellow editor, kwAwk, had already done a writeup of this Steele quote over in Serendipity. Be sure to give his piece a read; it's far more analytical than mine.
Sorry for the duplication, folks...
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (38)
What's so unclassy and undignified about socialism? You say it as if its a bad thing.
I see it as calling a spade a spade. The path the left is taking is quite obvious to us... scary to think it isn't even realized by those on the left (Baaaaaaah). Auto companies, credit card debts, hopes of socialized medicin... the list goes on.
How much more does a Democrat-controlled government need to buy up or try to control before you Obama fans consider it faintly socialistic?
Well, Skinny, I'd prefer that the opposition come up with...oh, I don't know...actual IDEAS or PLANS instead of just sitting back and saying "neener, neener, ya buncha socialists." The GOP lost the budget battle because they published an "alternative budget plan" without any numbers - how is that supposed to work?
I'd also like to see both sides talk about reality instead of spin. For instance, the existence of a government-run health insurance program is not "nationalized healthcare," and the notion of an REA-like program to push Internet access to rural areas is not "socializing the Internet;" by the same token, not every conservative is a "right-wing ideologue," and every activity by intel/LE agencies is NOT "a trampling of our civil liberties."
The truly sad thing is that both major parties need a very large dose of conservative/liberal reality. I'm convinced that the participants of this blog could sit down in a room and tackle just about any "hot button" issue you care to name; none of the groups would get everything they wanted, but we'd be able to come up with a reasonable course for government. All we get now is "we're in power, and we're pushing THIS no matter what" from one side and obstructionist crap from the other, and the parties merely swap positions as dictated by electoral results.
Skinny;
Many democrats are socialists but they refuse to accept the definition due to the well earned connotation with poverty, loss of freedom and over-all disaster its philosophy hoists on the people. Therefore the cringe worthy response like a vampire to sunlight of having there party renamed with Socialist in the title.
"To be fair, Steele has spoken publicly against the "rename your party" resolution; this just illustrates the broad divide facing the GOP"
Um....when hasn't the GOP been broadly divided on certain issues?
Nationalization isn't a good thing unless the government plans on de-nationalizing it down the road, like any capitalistic society would do... but no no no, not the good ol' USA. We're out to prove we can make something notorious for failing... work, and save us all.
We can sit here and debate the differences between Nationalism and Socialism all day, however I personally think the Democrats have skipped over the step the GOP totes as "Socialism", and instead (with the help of media and a cult icon) have marched straight on towards Fascism. I see the term "Socialism" as a nice way of describing some Democrats' actions and intentions.
Federalism is dying, Capitalism is being promoted as the enemy, closer and closer the left is coming to realizing their dream.
(if only they could get the media Nationaized)
What wingnuts don't understand is that if Democrats are socialists, then so are Republicans, Independents and anyone else who lives in this country. What the hell do you think Social Security is? Or Medicare? Or the Prescription Drug Bill passed by Republicans under Bush? Or the Post Office, or the Dept of Education and so on....
The problem here seems to be that the Know Nothings have taken over the Republican party. To Steele's credit, he's one of the few RNC members smart enough to know just how stupid this makes Republicans look. And if Michael Steele is one of the smartest people in your party, you know you've got problems.
It always helps avoid confusion if people understand what words actually mean.
Now if Republicans were to say that Democrats are slightly more inclined towards social programs that we are. I would have to agree with them. But that doesn't pack the political punch wingnuts are hoping for, so they are reduced to making fools of themselves. Steele deserves at least a little credit for using some common sense here. That is until he starts claiming that he will take on the President with class and dignity compared to Democrats. Lol!
You know, it’s not zactly new that these people aren’t making any sense. They stopped making any sense a long, long time ago.
We just now happen to be taking a little notice of exactly how little sense they make. That’s the difference.
Well, Egg, there's a little more to it than that. I would, for instance, agree that government ownership interest in companies such as AIG, Citibank, et al. is a socialistic move if made permanent; as you noted, however, there's a big difference between permanent government ownership interests and temporary moves (as I think most of us hope the current examples present).
Other ownership changes, such as the UAW stake in GM, are not socialistic in nature. The government brokered those changes, I'm sure, but that's no different from any other private-sector shift in ownership.
Geez, I guess all the juice went out of "liberal."
Maybe in a month or so it'll be "Evil CrackAddled Poopyhead Terrorist Nazis."
I guess I wasn't clear then Wes. Of course you're right about the banks and the auto industry, what we're doing is not socialism unless it were permanently owned. When I said Dems are slightly more inclined towards social programs, I was referring to healthcare and education, not industry. I, like many (most?) Dems, strongly favor a single payer gov't controlled healthcare system and would also go much farther to make sure the gov't allows each child to have a proper education up to and including college or trade school if they wanted. I consider healthcare and education a right and an investment.
Rip Van Winkle... meat the Egg Man.... Egg... Rip.
I have a question... what's Obama's plan to DEnationalize these businesses?
Anybody? Bueller?
i think you two are spending too much time applauding anything Democrat and attacking the credibility of anything conservative in nature (because only "Progressives" consider the GOP "conservative"), too incable of looking past the party politics to see how bad this really is. There's no plan, only hope... whatever that is means.
Ask any Chrysler dealer what's their thoughts on hope and change.
"[T]he party has certainly presented a near-monolithic front on most issues until recent years."
I guess you weren't paying attention during the GOP presidential primary.
double standard much, Mister "all conservatives are cuckoo-batshit-banana-wingnuttery-nooshans"? Thank you for chiming in as a perfect example. Maybe next you can say Rush Limbaugh is the reason terrorists hate us. (Ignorance is bliss)
and no, "Liberal" still has plenty of demeaning spirit left in it.
I consider healthcare and education a right and an investment
Sounds like 'from each according to their needs from each according to their abilities'. You do not have the 'right' to private property (capital) or talent. You have the right to pursue these goals according to our constitution.
'Progressives' vote to give the government the ability to take from the productive sector (because government doesn't produce wealth') to meet their idea of needs. The funny thing is they really think it'll work. (Republicans played the same game just more slowly.( Fabians.) Both parties buy votes with taxpayer money.)
Enjoy your worker's paradise!
Dissent without revolution is consent! "You have just run out of our money!"
Pure. Projection.
Skinny, I guess it boils down to this: when the President says that with all he has on his plate, the last thing he wanted was to have the executive branch and the federal government intimately involved with the auto industry, and he doesn’t intend for that to continue any longer than necessary, he sounds pretty credible. Because that makes sense.
When Nooshan Nation shrieks this is just a power grab and a way station on The Inexorable March to Socialist Democrat Fascist Dystopia, they sound like red-faced cranks in dire need of straitjackets.
Is there a plan to exit government involvement in the auto industry? Yes, clearly there is. Does it suit you to ignore that plan and pretend it doesn’t exist? Yes, clearly it does.
I rarely say ALL conservatives are ANYthing. I do try not to generalize, even if I don't always succeed. But there certainly seems to be a severe shortage of grownups in the GOP right now. This tantrum seems to be going on for months and shows no prospect of abating anytime soon.
Skinny, just to be clear, i thought you'd want me to tell you that calling the Administration "fascist" makes you sound like a whackjob. And I know a few whackjobs, and, skinnydipinacid, you're no whackjob.
LOL
I think the modern day liberal movement resembles more a propaganda tool than it does a political movement... if that makes me crazy, color me cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
... although, to be completely fair: the GOP seems to be trying to one up them at every turn, making them even the more pathetic of the two, so at times... we do indeed agree there.
(c'mon Libertarians... come up with something better than Bob Barr in the future)
Well, it doesn't make you crazy but I think it's yet another bit of projection. Where the liberals and centrists seem to have some actual ideas abouit policy and governing (like them or not), the base of the Grand Old Pestilence Party keeps insisting and hoping the right PR message, properly Twittered or Facebooked or whatever those jazzy newfangled media are, are going to turn it all around. It's the conservatives who've been all "message over substance" and it's completely done them in.
People aren't buying what you're selling. Time to shop for some new inventory. All the marketing in the world can't put a shine on a turd.
Just trying to figure out if we're on the same page...
“The Art of the Hissy Fit”: a good short piece that goes a long way toward explaining what’s wrong with the Democratic leadership.
They could, for instance, turn the bedwetting silliness of the “controversy” over where the Guantanamo detainees should go into something more like this.
But they won’t, because they continue to remain intimidated by Republican
douchnozzlespatriots."Except for the introduction of euphemisms and a few new ballyhooed but largely meaningless protocols, there is no longer a Bush-did-it argument. The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan — and now Guantánamo — are officially no longer part of the demonic Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld nexus, but apparently collective legitimate anti-terrorism measures designed to thwart killers, and by agreement, after years of observance, of great utility in keeping us safe the last eight years.
Add in the Holder statements about Guantánamo in the 2002 interview, the Pelosi/Rockefeller/et al. waterboarding briefings, the need to consider torture in past statements by senators such as Schumer, and I think historians will now look back at these "dark years" as largely a collective, bipartisan effort.
All of which leaves us a final musing: If so, what was the hysteria of 2001-2008 about other than simple politics?
I doubt we get any more movies about ongoing renditions, redactions, any more Checkpoint-like novels, any more waterboarding skits and reenactments, any more late-night comedians doing their Bush tapped, intercepted, tortured, renditioned, tribunaled poor suspect X routines.
And I guess as well that the good old days of supposedly flushed Korans in Guantánamo and Omar the poor liberationist renditioned to Cairo are over. We are now in the age of a sober and judicious President Obama who circumspectly, if reluctantly and in anguish at the high cost, does what is necessary to keep us safe."
You reckon? :)
"With the Democratic no-go on Guantánamo (I'll leave it to the better informed to ascertain the degree that the Democratic Congress came to the rescue of an embarrassed Obama administration and cut off funding for the shutdown to allow him an out with the now familiar excuse of "they did it — not me, who keeps promises")"
I reckon! :)
How Socialists er... I mean democrats treat tax payers once they're money is not needed anymore:
"Indiana will no longer invest in bonds issued by banks and automakers who receive federal bailout money.
Bondholders are supposed to be at the head of the line for repayment if a company goes bankrupt. But State Treasurer Richard Mourdock says the government rewrote the rulebook for the Chrysler bankruptcy, leaving investors with 29 cents on the dollar. Mourdock says that cost state investment funds $5.6 million."
And we won't see a brave young liberal senator, Obama-like, barnstorming the Iowa precincts blasting a presidency for trampling our values with the shame of Guantánamo, wiretaps, intercepts, renditions, military tribunals, Predators, Iraq, etc. That motif just dissolved — or rather, it never really existed.
It short, all the fury, the vicious slander, the self-righteous outbursts, the impassioned speeches from the floor, the "I accuse" op-eds by the usual moralistic pundits — all that turned out to be solely about politics, nothing more."
You betcha. ;)
tij... in terms of Guantanamo... the Democrats basically "punted"
tj, Indiana just 'sacrificed for the common good' doncha know? BTW, why aren't winston and kwawk getting another job to support Obama's economic disaster..er..a... agenda?
skinny, it's only different now to them because Obama's doing it. Kudos for trying to do the right thing.
What the 'progressives' don't comprehend is that the war doesn't hinge on right and left, the outcomes hinge on guessing right or wrong and using all the tools at your disposal. Leon Panetta said it correctly, "We are at war!" It's beyond imagination that the morally bankrupt left would attempt to use moral sanctions on another group.
Just today I heard Hillary Clinton cry about not being able to communicate our values with the Afgan people. Doesn't anyone remember when Rumsfeld was told to "stop the propaganda" when he tried using radio and newspapers to get the message out that we were the good guys? (I thought they should have used an Afgan version of Tokyo Rose, myself.)
How's that working for you now, Hillary?
Republicans calling dems socialists? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, to me.
... like politicians calling each other liars.
The good times just a keep on a comin'!
I don't have a problem with wiretaps - with judicial review in place. I don't have a problem with military tribunals - with realistic procedures and strict standards for evidence. I don't have a problem with much of the Patriot Act - with sunsets and judicial review. et cetera...et cetera...you see the pattern.
"For more than a few people, the problem was one of process--specifically, the extreme emphasis of Executive authority--more than it was a problem with the general procedures themselves."
I see...so you perfer style over substance when it comes to protecting our country.
"I don't have a problem with wiretaps - with judicial review in place. I don't have a problem with military tribunals - with realistic procedures and strict standards for evidence. I don't have a problem with much of the Patriot Act - with sunsets and judicial review. et cetera...et cetera...you see the pattern."
In other words, you'd rather this war be fought by anyone other than the one person explicitly authorized by the US Constitution to do so.
"For more than a few people, the problem was one of process--specifically, the extreme emphasis of Executive authority..."
Did it ever occur to you that the "extreme emphasis of Executive authority" is exactly how the framers of the US Constitution wanted our wars to be prosecuted, and the lack of "process" that troubles you so is by their design?
Did you ever wonder, machiavelli, whether the Framers anticipated wild, reckless claims of the US remaining at (largely undeclared) war for years or decades, against only vaguely defined enemies, with the entire globe supposedly being the "battlefield"?
I think the only people who foresaw that, Winston, were the very people who we (as in, anyone who isn't living in the 6th century) stood by and allowed to descend into fundamentalist madness. Either through our ignorance, indifference or manipulation, we've found ourselves at war with an ideology that doesn't give a damn about uniforms or territorial sovereignty.
We can choose to either marginalize them or shoot them. What we cannot do, however, is pretend they aren't there.
Nor do we need to be sitting here on the sidelines like armchair quarterbacks bitching over whether or not "Coach" is doing his f*cking job.
We can handle emergencies and still adhere to the rule of law. For instance, there's no reason for wiretaps to be warrantless; the Executive easily could have set up after-the-fact warrants, a la FISA, but chose not only to skip that but to also amass/retain huge amounts of information on Americans without cause. Ditto for those warrantless "National Security Letters" for the FBI; we've already had a good number of cases where that authority was misused/abused.
Gee, that's simplistic. Nothing I've said suggests that "this war be fought by anyone other than the one person explicitly authorized" - all I've said that is that Executive actions do not occur in a vacuum, and that many of them should be subject to legislative and judicial oversight. The Executive doesn't get a blank check.Hmmm...then why did they separate the authorities to declare and wage war? Why did they set up a judiciary in the first place? Why do promotions into the upper echelons of the military require Senate confirmation? Why must treaties be ratified by the Senate? When it comes to American citizens, why doesn't the Bill of Rights carry an "except in wartime" disclaimer?It's instructive to note that, when cases involving the "war on terror" have reached US courts, there's been something of a split; we've seen strong deference to the Executive in some areas (for instance, on the "state secrets" doctrine), but the courts have delivered some serious smackdowns as well (e.g. Boumediene). That's how this has to work. As so many are fond of saying, this is a different kind of war. We aren't fighting a nation-state, there are no formal declarations of war, and we're feeling our way through it. I would suggest that this is precisely why the Founders set up the checks and balances as they did.