Why can't those Republicans just get along?

By Richard K. Barry

You may have noticed that there is an awful lot of sniping going on in the GOP these days. Maybe it was just more obvious last week coming out of the CPAC convention, which prompted the radical right and so-called establishment Republicans to say unpleasant things about each other at a furious clip.

Now we hear that former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has called current RNC Chairman Reince Preibus 'numb nuts.' Really. He called him 'numb nuts.'

 And then someone decided it would be a good idea to ask Steele which of the two would prevail in a cage fight. Steele, without the sense to leave the query alone, said, "Oh, no question, I would clean his clock. Just one knock on the head. It's done."

 Someone needs a time out. In fact, I think an entire political party might need one.

Lanny Davis and Michael Steele: bipartisan scoundrels

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Jon Chait wrote yesterday about a new venture involving "Democrat" Lanny Davis and Republican Michael Steele:

Howard Kurtz reports — or, at any rate, writes down — that Steele and Davis are pitching their firm dedicated to urging people to "tone down the negativity and personal attacks." 

A more specific sense of what they're after can be gleaned by comments such as this, from Davis: "I get more heat and more vitriol from my side than from conservative Republicans." In Democratic politics these days, he says, "you're not allowed to deviate from a purist, absolutist position. It disturbs me that people who are supposed to be tolerant of dissent are so venomous."

In other words, they want less negativity against them. The firm is a nice way for Steele and Davis to reframe criticism of themselves as mean-spirited opposition to bipartisanship. In reality, people like Steele and Davis get attacked not because they break from party dogma but because they are, respectively, a buffoon and a sleaze-merchant. (To be fair, Davis is a buffoon as well.)

Needless to say -- if you know anything about these two -- this is just plain ridiculous, just the sort of right-leaning, Republican-friendly "bipartisanship" that passes for centrism these days, and all the more ridiculous for being peddled by a couple of clowns.

But let me address what Davis said...

Actually, what the fuck was he talking about? The only reason he might get more criticism from the left than from the right is that the right doesn't give a shit about him while some on the left still bother to call him out for being a corrupt and morally bankrupt lobbyist. Otherwise, though, what party does he belong to -- and does he know anything about American politics these days?

The Democratic Party is the party of purity and absolutism, a party that allows for no deviation -- and purges its ranks of dissenters? Really? Is he that stupid?

What's he was describing is the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. The latter, after all -- his party, supposedly -- is the party that can rarely get its act together given all the divisions within. It's the party of progressive activists and Wall Street insiders, the party of Blue Dogs and the CPC, the party of Dennis Kucinich and, well, Barack Obama. It's the former, the GOP, that is the party of extremist absolutism, the party of right-wing Bolsheviks purging its ranks of moderates and others, like Richard Lugar, deemed insufficiently conservative, the party of the Tea Party, the party that required a former Massachusetts moderate to suck up shamelessly to its right-wing base and even then threw up every obstacle it could to block him from winning its presidential nomination.

Let me ask again, is Lanny Davis really that stupid?

Who the hell is Reince Priebus?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Why, he's your new RNC chair!

With Michael "gaffe-fest" Steele out of the way, after a memorable two-year term of one embarrassing (for him and his party) moment after another, Priebus, previously the GOP party chair in Wisconsin before working for Steele at the RNC, stormed to a win in the seventh round of voting yesterday afternoon to capture the top spot at the Republican National Committee.

So let the Reince Priebus era begin!

Think Progress has a helpful overview of just who this guy is and what he's all about: 

– Priebus's law firm sought funds from Obama's stimulus package: Connecticut GOP chairman Chris Healy noted that Priebus's Wisconsin law firm helped its clients obtain federal stimulus funds, citing the fact that Priebus's name was attached to the "Stimulus and Economic Recovery Group." Priebus immediately responded to the story, claiming he had never worked with his firm's "Stimulus and Economic Recovery" group. 

– His law firm says the recently passed health care bill is constitutional: Priebus's law firm not only says the law is constitutional, but has touted its benefits to clients. 

– Implicated in voter caging: While Priebus was chair of the Wisconsin GOP, the state party engaged fomented voter fraud conspiracies and hatched a voter caging plot with well-funded right-wing allies to suppress minority votes. One Wisconsin Now Executive Director Scot Ross said, "When voter suppression allegations have surfaced in Wisconsin for the past decade, the name Reince Priebus isn't far behind."

– He has the backing of many of the Barbour clan: Henry Barbour, a committeeman from Mississippi and the nephew of Gov. Hale Barbour (R-MS), enticed Priebus into running for the RNC chair. Also, Nick Ayers, a close Barbour associate and executive director of the Republican Governors Association, reportedly gave behind-the-scenes support to Priebus, leading many to believe Priebus would favor Barbour for president in 2012. Priebus responded by saying, "I'm not Haley's choice, I don't think that Haley has any horse in the race, and he's made that pretty clear on the record."

– Priebus had close ties to former chairman Michael Steele, then stabbed him in the back: Priebus was Steele's general counsel and frequently served as Steele's top liaison to committee members. In a memo sent to RNC members, Connecticut Party chairman Chris Healy said that Priebus is partly responsible for the RNC's poor performance. Commenting on Priebus' run, Steele recently said, "It's disappointing, you would hope that the bonds of loyalty were thicker than they apparently were."

– Priebus mistakenly called for Obama's execution: In a media conference call about Osama Bin Laden, Priebus slipped and accidentally called for the "execution" of Obama three separate times. "My guess is he would believe that Obama should be executed and he oughta be treated as a war criminal," Priebus explained. 

And this is from his Wikipedia page:

In the December 1, 2010 RNC candidate forum, Priebus provided a few details about his politics. He said he believes the RNC is "part of" the Tea Party movement; believes in the Christian God and stated that if he were elected as RNC chair it would be through God's blessing; believes it is the Republican Party's mission to "save our country, to save our party, and to take back the White House"; believes someone who is "pro-abortion, pro-stimulus, pro-AIG ... might not be a Republican"; and believes that being pro-life is "paramount" to the Republican Party platform. He wants to ban earmarks and to require photo IDs to vote. He opposes the legal recognition of same sex marriage.

So... he's a self-aggrandizing hypocrite and opportunist who's connected to Haley "perfect Republican" Barbour, who has been involved in racist voter suppression, who, like his former boss, is fully capable of making appalling gaffes, and who is an ideological extremist who adheres to far-right (but mainstream GOP) positions on social and economic issues and loves the Tea Party?

Wow. Does it get any better than that?

Quote of the Day

By Creature

"Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan." -- Republican National Committee Chairman and anti-war activist, Michael Steele.

I'm assuming he didn't clear this statement with President John McCain first.

Let's pity the victim

By Capt. Fogg

There should be an emoticon for a dumbfounded guffaw or something less childishly vulgar than 'WTF?' to express my reaction to Michael Steele's attempt to make himself a martyr instead of a hypocrite. It would save so many keystrokes.

It takes a desperate man and a little man to dismiss the scorn over his involvement with the kinky strip club incident GOP contributors unknowingly funded. There's something distinctly oily about his assertion that he has a "slimmer margin of error" as a black man, even though that might be true in general.

It's a different role for me to play and others to play and that's just the reality of it. But you just take that as a part of the nature of it,

he explained on Good Morning America this morning.

Whether or not he actually is held to a higher standard than a non-African American in his position as RNC chairman would be, that frisky business is certainly at a level where anyone would be condemned for it and above the level where a white Democratic president might be impeached for it.

Yes, it's true that an honest politician (we're speaking hypothetically here) has to walk on eggs, so to speak and it's true that one of a minority group has to have even more delicate toes, but that certainly doesn't apply to a gleeful romp in the slime bucket, does it Mr. Steele? Falsely posing as a victim doesn't help real victims either.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Hot horny girls will do anything Republicans want

By Michael J.W. Stickings

To put it mildly, it hasn't been a good week for the RNC -- but is it ever, with the perpetually foot-in-mouth Michael Steele as chair?

First it was the lesbian bondage club scandal, then it was leading conservative Tony Perkins telling donors not to give money to the RNC, now it's this little embarrassment:

The Republican National Committee inadvertently sent a fundraising mail piece earlier this month with a return number that leads to a phone sex line offering to connect callers with "hot horny girls... students, housewives, and working girls from all over the country."

"We love nasty talk as much as you do," says a woman's voice on the sex-line's audio recording.

Doug Heye, the RNC’s communications director, said that the mail piece was produced by Burch Munford Direct, a direct-mail firm frequently used by the RNC.

According to Heye, the firm "will not be used for the foreseeable future."

No, really?

Heye said that the mix-up happened when the direct mail firm replaced the RNC's "202" area code with an "800" area code.

So, instead of directing callers to the RNC's main line (which is 202-863-8500), the mailer incorrectly identified the RNC's phone number as 800-863-8500.

If you call 800-863-8500, it directs you to call a second number -- 800-454-5400 -- which is the sex line offering to connect callers with live women who will do "anything you want" for $2.99 per minute.

Anything we want? Like, how about some hot lesbian housewives tying up Tony Perkins and punishing him until he breaks down, soils himself, and submits to the tyrannical genius of Michael Steele?

Okay, okay, it was an easy mistake, and I suppose no harm was done. But shouldn't there have been some fact-checking and copy editing, just to make sure the mailing was, er, kosher?

And shouldn't Republicans, if they know what's good for them -- which is debatable -- give Steele the boot he so richly deserves?

Not that I care, mind you. I happen to like this seemingly bottomless reservoir of amusement at the GOP's expense.

Michael Steele says he won't run for president in 2012, sending GOP and Beltway media into a frenzy of uncertainty

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I know I'm not the most connected person in the world, but I'm a little baffled here. Who exactly is talking seriously about a Steele presidential run? He's been an embarrassment as RNC chair, usually to himself but also to his party generally, and is basically a gaffe-prone buffoon who doesn't seem to have much of a clue about anything.

"In all honest-to-good seriousness, that is such silly Washington talk," he said. "It's just not even on my mind." Well, we'll see. Denials can't always be taken seriously, especially in Washington. And he does think rather highly of himself. So is the talk just in his own head, or are people really talking? And if the latter, what the hell are they thinking?

Now, I realize he's that rarest of rareties, a black Republican, and I realize some Republicans probably think they can win a few votes by pretending their party is more diverse than it really is -- and, more all-white country club than multicultural melting pot, it isn't diverse at all -- but it would take an astonishing amount of desperation and delusion to think that Steele is the right man to lead the GOP in 2012. ("Hey, let's try to beat that black guy with a black guy of our own! We can't lose!"

Unless, of course, what they're looking for is a sacrificial lamb, in which case Steele could play the part really well. After all, he plays the victim card just about as well as any Republican, and he'd likely spin a loss in "woe is me," and perhaps even in racial/racist, terms. (Even losing to Obama, he'd find a way to bring race into it.)

**********

Just how crazy is Michael Steele? Here are some of our posts on him:

-- MJWS: Why does Michael Steele hate Republicans?

-- MJWS: Craziest Republican of the Day: Michael Steele (and the issue of the number of uninsured in America)

-- MJWS: So this is what Michael Steele's RNC has come to? [phone pranks]

-- MJWS: Craziest Republican of the Day: Michael Steele [suggesting the economy's fine because the malls are "packed" on Saturdays]

-- JTD: Steele singing "To Rush With Love"

Come to think of it, he'd be the perfect opponent for Obama in '12. Go for it, Republicans!

What Reid said

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Like Steve Benen, I find Harry Reid's 2008 comments about Obama -- "light-skinned," "no Negro dialect" -- "disappointing," but that's about it. Reid has apologized, and I take his apology to be sincere:

I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans, for my improper comments.

And, to quote Steve:

Reid also reached out directly to a variety of leaders from the African-American community, and the initial reports suggest the senator's apologies were well received. Al Sharpton, for example, called the comments "unfortunate," but emphasized the "unquestionable leadership role" Reid has played on a variety of issues, including civil rights. Sharpton added, "Senator Reid's door has always been open on hearing from the civil rights community on these issues and I look forward to continue to work with Senator Reid wherever possible to improve the lives of Americans everywhere."

And it's that context that keeps me from pouncing. Reid's comments clearly warranted an apology, but his record and credibility on racial issues helps mitigate his genuinely dumb choice of words. I don't think Reid is a racist -- if anything, his comments seem to be an assessment of white people and their voting attitudes, not black people -- but the fact that his race-related rhetoric is decades out of date is discouraging, to put it mildly.

There you go: disappointing and discouraging. So let's be done with it.

Ah, if only it were that easy. Republicans, predictably, have jumped all over Reid, with embattled RNC Chair Michael Steele calling for his resignation, as if Democrats should ever take Steele's advice or suggestions at all seriously, as they are never given in good faith. (So what if Steele thinks Reid should resign? What business is it of his?)

Republicans are also pointing to a supposed double standard here. Back in 2002, then Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Republican, was forced out after saying that Strom Thurmond, a fellow Republican and segregationist, should have been elected president in 1948, indeed, that the country would have been better off for it. Why is Reid allowed to keep his position, they ask, if Lott wasn't?

Steve is right that "there's really no comparison here." Reid's choice of words was unfortunate, and stupid, but his comments weren't racist. He was actually one of Obama's more prominent supporters for president. When this story broke, he called the president and apologized personally. And Obama accepted his apology:

I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.

Again, there you go. It's all much ado about very little, and that very little has been taken care of. Just don't expect Republicans to let it go anytime soon. Without any policy alternatives to stand out, and without much of a vision, all they can do it try to score political points off manufactured scandals, and here, as ever, they're doing with all the desperate gusto they can muster.

Scozzafava pulls out of NY-23 House race, GOP's extremist right scores another major victory

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On this All Hallows' Eve 2009, Dede Scozzafava, the (official) Republican candidate in the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, has suspended her campaign just days before the vote, giving up in the face of simple inevitability and essentially handing her official GOP nod to far-right Republican and Conservative Party insurgent Doug Hoffman.

Of course, the writing was on the wall. Conservatives have been conducting a nasty smear campaign to bring Scozzafava down while pumping up Hoffman as their chosen one, as their cause célèbre. Scozzafava had the party endorsement, but conservative Republicans across the land had declared their support for Hoffman, and the polls showed Hoffman well ahead of Scozzafava and just about even with Democrat Bill Owens. In pulling out, Scozzafava basically acknowledged that she understood what was happening, that she was going to lose, that Republican support was divided, that the only way for the Republicans to win was to let Hoffman pick up the mantle.

And Republicans, with Scozzafava kicked to the curb, have been quick to embrace Hoffman -- those, that is, who weren't already enthusiastically on board, including those at the top of the party apparatus. Here's what RNC Chair Michael Steele said almost immediately after Scozzafava's announcement -- yes, of course it was coordinated:

Effective immediately, the R.N.C. will endorse and support the Conservative candidate in the race, Doug Hoffman. Doug's campaign will receive the financial backing of the R.N.C. and get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat Bill Owens on Tuesday.

And the floodgates opened wider. "National Republican Party officials, who had also endorsed Scozzafava, are now lining up behind Hoffman," reports CNN. "This new show of GOP unity will make it more difficult for Owens to win the election on Tuesday." Of course, that's what this was all about. Scozzafava may or may not have seen the writing on the wall, but she was no doubt informed of it, and she was likely shown the door, or perhaps even pushed out, told that the party wanted her to fall on her sword, or else.

Even Newt Gingrich, who had shown a rare modicum of sanity by endorsing Scozzafava and rightly accusing Hoffman's right-wing backers of conducting a "purge" of the party, has flipped. He's now in Hoffman's corner.

So what now? Is a Hoffman win now pretty much inevitable? Here's Marc Ambinder:

A series of polls showed Scozzafava in third place, well behind Democrat Bill Owens and, suddenly, Conservative Doug Hoffman, who had stolen about half of Scozzafava's base. Where do the rest of her votes go? CW says that most go to Hoffman, but I'm with Jonathan Martin: I think half go to Democrat Bill Owens or they stay home. GOP registration exceeds Democratic registration by nearly 50,000. This is a Republican district that is likely to remain Republican, -- only significantly more conservative than it's been.

So, yes. It's now Hoffman's race to lose. And, in this generally Republican -- if also generally moderate (hence Scozzafava's appeal to locals) -- district (it went for Obama, but it has gone Republican in House races for generations), Owens just won't pick up enough moderate Republican support to counter the expected boost for Hoffman.

And what does Hoffman's seemingly successful insurgency mean, or, rather, how is it likely to be interpreted? Ambinder again:

Republicans will derive two lessons from the results of this race. One is that the activist base of the party is becoming increasingly powerful in the one area that had eluded them: candidate selection. Other conservative Republicans may now feel more comfortable if they decide to challenge incumbents in primaries. Democrats, believing that Republicans will conservatize-themselves to death demographically, will take this as a positive trend for the long-term. The second lesson is that populist, regular guy candidates win in supposedly "moderate" districts.

The race had become a proxy for debates about the future of the party. Since the situation in NY 23 is so unusual, it may be folly to squeeze out more meaning than's already present.

That's fair, sure, but I think this is far more significant long-term for the GOP than Ambinder suggests, and I think Andrew Sullivan is right: 

No one knows what might happen now. For the insurgents, it means a scalp they will surely use to purge the GOP of any further dissidence. But the insurgents were also backed by the establishment, including Tim Pawlenty, who's supposed to be the reasonable center.

Hoffman's insurgency was driven by the usual suspects on the Republican right, where the likes of Michelle Malkin, overcome with ideological madness, think even GOP moderates are "radical leftists," but, Gingrich notwithstanding, many in the Republican establishment had thrown their weight behind Hoffman. He wasn't just the preferred candidate, the preferred Republican, of the fringe but of parts of the mainstream as well.

Let me clarify that. What was once the fringe is increasingly the mainstream, and the right's victory here -- even before the election, the victory in pushing Hoffman over Scozzafava -- is indicative of the larger shift among Republicans as a whole to the (far) right. Moderates and others who dissent from rightist orthodoxy are either leaving or being purged, and what remains is a narrow ideological sliver in which a Doug Hoffman, or a Michelle Malkin, is actually the new center, a center well to the right both of what the Republican Party used to be and of where the overwhelming majority of the American people are. Even in New York it is not acceptable, it would seem, to deviate from the new party line. Scozzafava got the message. I suspect that all Republicans across the country are getting it, too.

Why does Michael Steele hate Republicans?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Friday that a victory by Doug Hoffman, the third-party candidate in the Nov. 3 New York special election, is a win for the GOP.

The actual Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, trails Hoffman, the Conservative Party nominee, and Democrat Bill Owens by double-digits according to a recent poll. But Steele argued during an interview with POLITICO that the GOP doesn't need to worry about Scozzafava's lagging ratings because Hoffman is essentially a Republican.

"You've got two Republicans running in that race. My upside is that one of them will likely win," Steele said. "We want to be supporting the one that wins."

"I don't split the party into conservative or not," he said. "I'm looking as the national chairman to walk out of there one way or the other with a win."

I get it. He's hedging. But, in this race, Hoffman isn't the Republican, Scozzafava is.

Let me repeat that, just to be clear: In NY-23, Dede Scozzafava, not Doug Hoffman, is the Republican nominee. So shouldn't the chairman of the Republican National Committee be actively backing the Republican nominee?

Winning, of course, is what matters, and Hoffman, the Conservative candidate (and also a Republican), has a much better shot of winning than Scozzafava, who has been viciously and relentlessly smeared by the right.

Still, there's something pathetic about Steele's win-either-way approach. If nothing else, it papers over what is the real story here, which is the rapid splintering of the Republican Party and the ongoing rise of the extremist right in what is increasingly a narrow, ideologically extreme party on the fringe of American society.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Michael Steele (and the issue of the number of uninsured in America)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mustang Bobby flagged the Steele-Univision interview yesterday, focusing on the RNC chair's comments on immigration (which were appallingly ignorant in their flag-waving superficiality), but I wanted to post here on his comments on health-care reform:

Jorge Ramos - Republican Senator Olympia Snowe has announced that she will vote for a healthcare reform bill. Are you disappointed, do you expect more Republicans to vote for it?

Michael Steele - I don't, if it's what we've seen produced so far in the House and in the Senate. I don't think we need a comprehensive overhaul of our healthcare system because our healthcare system, while it remains the best in the country and while it provides largely the services that people need and the quality of those services are very, very good, there are costs associated with this system that needs to be address more directly.

Jorge Ramos - But there are 40 or 50 million people who don't have health insurance. Right?

Michael Steele - The President himself has said it's not 40 to 50 number one, number two, the President himself has reduced that number to 30 and the actual number of people who legitimately need to access this healthcare system are around 12 to 15 million, but if that's the number, I'll take your 40 to 50 million if that is the number you want to use, the question then becomes, how much, who pays and where does the money come from and the administration continues to fail to address that issue in an honest way for the people to appreciate exactly what this cost is going to be for a complete overhaul of our system versus what Republicans have argued... It's commonsense solution, it doesn't require a nationalizing of our healthcare system, and it doesn't involve or require a great government intrusion through regulation and taxation and other confiscatory policies. What it requires is applying a little, you know elbow grease, to allow those businesses, those Hispanic businesses for example, under the market place and get the healthcare that they need.

First, it is simply delusional to think that an overhaul of the health-care system isn't needed. And it's the usual right-wing flag-waving to assert that the American system is the best system (simply because it's American, it would seem, for there is little to back up the assertion). Yes, I admit, the American system is quite excellent, in some respects, like research and innovation. But you can't fully access the system unless you have a lot of money, and, what's more, costs are spiralling out of control.

Second, one of the key components of the Republican opposition to meaningful reform involves claiming that there are far fewer uninsured Americans than people think. So it isn't 40 or 50 million, or even 30 million, it's more like 12 to 15 million -- as if this somehow makes reform unnecessary. It is difficult to pin down an exact number, but, according to the bipartisan National Coalition on Health Care, Census data show that about 47 million Americans, or roughly 20 percent of the population under 65, were uninsured in 2008. This is backed up by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, according to this 2005 brief, put the number at 45.8 million. The number of uninsured in 2007 was 45.7 million.

In August of this year, NPR looked behind that 45.7 million number. There were 45.7 million Americans who were uninsured at some point that year. While this means that not everyone who is uninsured is permanently uninsured, the problem is not diminished. There were still that many people who at some point didn't have any coverage and couldn't seek the care they may have needed. NPR also notes the key conservative arguments: that some of the 45.7 million have Medicaid and falsely reported lacking insurance; that many of those without insurance are not American citizens, including many undocumented immigrants; and that many of those without insurance qualify for existing programs but haven't signed up. "So, are there really 46 million uninsured?" NPR asks. "It's the current best guess, but it might be off by several million." Yes, but the reality is that "[w]hatever the exact figure, tens of millions of people don't have insurance."

The number of uninsured is certainly much higher than the 12 to 15 million range Steele suggested, and much higher than other reform opponents would have us believe. But even if it were "just" 12 to 15 million... that's still 12 to 15 million people! And while I realize that 12 to 15 million people in a country as large as the U.S. is smaller proportionally than a similar number in, say, Canada (where, of course, there is universal coverage), it's still a huge number. How is any system that leaves 12 to 15 million people without coverage -- and hence without adequate care -- a good system, let alone the best system in the world? How is any such system fair and decent and just and humane? Forget 12 to 15 million. How about a million, or a thousand, or one? How is a system that leaves anyone without coverage a good system? Yes, there may be people who choose, for whatever reason, to opt out, who don't want insurance of any kind, but that should be a choice. Everyone, I think, should at least have the choice to have sufficient insurance to be able to seek adequate care. (I would probably mandate at least minimal coverage (but not specific care), but that's another matter.)

But let's get back to the point: It's not 12 to 15 million, it's 45+ million. And that is simply unacceptable -- a gross injustice in a land supposedly of plenty.

Back to Steele's comments:

Third, the reform packages currently under consideration on Capitol Hill do not propose nationalization, nor "great government intrusion." Not a single one of them. At most, there would be a public option: an option, a choice. The health-care market would not be replaced with a government-run single-payer system, it would be augmented with an additional choice -- a choice that would bring many of the currently uninsured into the system. How is that a bad thing?

It isn't. But Republicans like Steele -- and he is, at least by title, the head of the GOP -- oppose any and all reform and are obviously willing to lie and deceive in order to achieve their obstructionist aims.

The truth about Republicans (and health-care reform)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's often edifying when Republicans show their true colours, even if they're not exactly "beautiful like a rainbow."

On health-care reform specifically, Republicans on Capitol Hill have for the most part either been obstructionists or outright opponents, hurling their lies and propaganda about "socialism" and "death panels" with all the strength they could muster, much of it latching on with an irresponsible media establishment that emphasizes not the facts, not the truth, but the partisan battle, thereby giving credence to Republican dishonesty, as well as with the public, much of which lacks the capacity to be able to make an informed decision.

And the whole bipartisanship angle has been, from the start, a charade -- and a farce. Republicans simply aren't serious compromise, about making a deal. Most are against reform altogether, preferring the status quo, or more of it, to fixing what is a broken and costly system that leaves tens of millions of Americans without adequate care or without coverage altogether, on the outside looking in. A few, including the three in the so-called "Gang of Six" on the Senate Finance committee, supposedly seek compromise -- meaning, concessions from Democrats -- but what they really want, at most, is to water down the legislation to such a point that reform is meaningless.

But, let's face it, even those supposed compromisers, the supposed moderates, don't really want reform at all, as we've suspected -- indeed, as we've known -- all along.

As Ezra Klein reports, for example, Charles Grassley, the leading Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has actually been fundraising against reform back home in Iowa. Furthermore, as Brian Beutler notes, Mike Enzi, another GOP Gang of Six member, has "trashed Democratic reform ideas," even picking up on the "death panel" lie. The White House, apparently, has had enough. Elsewhere, RNC Chair Michael Steele said that Republicans won't be "guilted" into reform, as if this is what Democrats are trying to do, as if the only way Republicans will do reform is out of guilt. And now we learn that Republicans would actually repeal health-care reform if they won in 2010.

Joe Klein is right. The charade is over:

It is not impossible that other Republicans who are not Senators from Maine can be located to support health care reform. But it's also entirely possible that the Republicans will continue their kamikaze ways and oppose a reform that is likely to prove very popular with the American public when it's enacted (which is why, in truth, the GOP nihilists oppose it).

Which is why the Democrats should, as I and many others have argued many times, go it alone. Which won't, of course, be easy, given Democratic opposition to the so-called "public option," not least from the Blue Dogs. But what is the alternative? To continue to negotiate with an opposition party that has no interest negotiating in good faith? To continue to seek compromise with an opposition party that has no interest in compromise? To continue to work for a bipartisan solution with an opposition party that is unwaveringly partisan and that puts party before all else, including the good of the country?

Simply put, it's time to move on, and to do what is right, which is health-care reform with a robust public option. Republicans have had their say. It's with the Democrats now, the Democrats alone, and they, and Obama, must take charge.

So this is what Michael Steele's RNC has come to?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Phone pranks?

The Republican Party. Where petulant children run the insanitarium.

(I realize the Democrats were playing politics, too, encouraging their supporters to phone the RNC (while also addressing the issue in question, it must be stressed), but couldn't the RNC have found a more mature way to respond (while responding to the substance of the issue)? -- No, you're right. Probably not.)

8.9

By Creature

That's the percentage of Americans currently unemployed. Include folks who have stopped looking for work, or have settled for part-time work, and that number jumps to 15.8%. The good news here is that layoffs slowed in April as employers cut 539,000 jobs. Still a holy-crap number but yet it's the fewest jobs lost in the last six months. What kept that number low: "a burst of government hiring." But everyone knows those aren't real jobs. Isn't that right, Chairman Steele?

Re-branding

By Creature

As the GOP launches one re-branding effort after another, let's remember that the election of Michael Steele to the top of the RNC perch was one of the first of these efforts (and we all know how successful that has been). Epic flail.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Michael Steele

By Michael J.W. Stickings

RNC Chair Michael Steele guest-hosted Bill Bennett's radio show this morning. In response to a caller who claimed that he "[doesn't] see people spending any less money than they have been, Steele said this:

I've heard a number of people say that across the country. The malls are just as packed on Saturday.

And he said it while laughing, exhibiting just the sort of detachment from reality and insensitivity to the plight of normal Americans that you'd expect from a high-ranking Republican, or any Republican, at this time of historic economic crisis.

It's so hilarious -- isn't it? -- that so many people are having trouble paying their bills, putting food on the table, and supporting their children, so uproarious that so many people are losing their jobs and that the economy has collapsed to the point where only massive government activism and investment can save it from itself.

Well, I suppose it is, to Republicans like Steele (and there are many, many like him, however much of a joke he may be as RNC chair), who are either too ignorant to have a clue or too viciously ideological to care.

It's just like when there's an unseasonably warm day in February and all the global warming denialists come out of their caves and upchuck the same old lies. Yeah, sure, malls are still busy, people are still spending money -- but is such anecdotal evidence, which takes no account of job numbers or corporate profits, or anything else, a meaningful indicator of the state of the economy, let alone of the struggling, and suffering, of normal Americans? Of course not.

Steele is a moron and a fool. No wonder he was tasked with heading up the GOP.

**********

For all of our Craziest Republicans of the Day posts, see here.

For all of our Craziest Conservatives of the Day posts, see here.

Quote of the Day: Specter on Steele

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I wouldn't pay a whole lot of attention to him,

Specter said yesterday morning on Pennsylvania radio. Right, because it's not like Steele is a major player or anything, or that he can simply be ignored. He's only the chairman of your freakin' party.

No moderates allowed

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Not in the GOP, that's for sure: "Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on Wednesday refused to retreat on his pledge to back primary challengers against the three GOP senators who voted in favor of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus."

"I'm not backing down from that," said Steele.

No, I'm sure he's not, not that he's now kowtowed before Dear Leader Rush. Stressing his own right-wing bona fides, whatever his hip-hop hopes for the unhippest party around, he's presiding over a party of extremism, ever more extremism, one in which difference, let alone dissent, is simply verboten.

The Republican Party, where ideological purges happen. Good times.

Steele singing "To Rush With Love"

By J. Thomas Duffy

Oh my, this is schadenfreude at its best.

My apologies for the lack of posting yesterday, it was a day of juggling, dealing with the Aunt, and also, having to remove the almost 10 inches of snow (made easier by the generous neighbor, offering use of his snowblower ... Yes, better than shoveling, but still a pretty good workout).

Despite the cumbersome endeavors, I still managed to keep an eye on things, and it is becoming riveting, almost a sporting event, watching the continuing meltdown of the Party of Noicans.



Monday brought a gigantic pissing contest between the Cheesburger That Sweats (H/T to Barry Crimmins) and RNC Chairman Mike "Off The Hook" Steele.

Seems the drug-addicted radio jockey doesn't like people trying to distance themselves from his dementia, which hip-hopping Mikey attempted to do, right on the heels of El Dittohead Grande's Constitutional-challenged ramblings at the Right Wing Rabid Fest.

Cutting Edge Steele did his, now mandatory, PartyofNoican's mea culpa, if they aren't masturbating to El Dittohead Grande 24/7, but he must have loaded up on the drugs before his radio gig and ripped apart Mikey's new gig, as the Big Cheese PartyofNoican chieftain.

It was really pitiful, seeing Mikey moonwalking as fast was he could, away from his criticism of El Dittohead Grande.



As Joan Walsh points out;

I emailed D.L. Hughey to get his perspective on Steele's sudden change of heart, but he may wait for his show to give his reply. What's clear is that Hughley and Steele had a long, animated conversation in which Steele argued convincingly and forcefully that Limbaugh is not the party's leader, he's an entertainer, and his views are getting entirely too much attention as the party tries to right itself after its thumping in November. It's just not the sort of conversation in which you can disavow certain "words" or say "I was thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently." It was a long conversation, not a soundbite.

Ahh, but what a difference a day makes, as the old song goes.

For that, as we did so often for The Bush Grindhouse (and others), we have to give Michael "Off The Hook" Steele a little soundtrack to go by.

We're pretty sure, by going retro, he can pull off his pledge of being "cutting edge" with it.

And, considering we're writing about Mike "Bling Bling" Steele, and the Cheeseburger That Sweats, we get a bit of irony, in that we are using the big hit of, none other than, Lulu.

Sing or hum along, even if you don't want to admit you know the song.

"To Rush With Love"

Those Misson Accomplished days, of telling tales and torturing detainees are gone,
But in my mind,
I know they will still live on and on,
But how do you thank someone, who has taken you from McNabb to Magic Negroes?
It isn't easy, but I'll try,

If you want the Party, I would write across the sky in letters,
That would soar a thousand feet high,
To Rush, with Love

The time has come,
For closing ranks and long last bipartisanship must end,
And as I grovel,
I know that I am gaining my new best friend,
A friend who taught that Obama is wrong,
And I will play along,
There's a lot to learn,
What, what can I give you in return?

If you want the Party I would try to make a start,
But I, would rather you let me give my heart,
To Rush, with Love

Bonus Party of Noicans Meltdown Riffs

Al Giordano: Ugly and Incendiary

Media Matters - Limbaugh: "The dirty little secret ... is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it"

Ross Douthat: Rush and Oprah

Joe Gandelman: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele and the Republican Party: The Sequel

Greg Sargent: Rush Refuses To Say Whether Successful Obama Fix Of Economy Would Be Good For The Country

Top Ten Cloves: Ways Rush Limbaugh Can Get Woman Not To Hate Him


Bonus Bonus

Okay, here's the original ...

To Sir With Love

Epic fail

By Carl

Often, I hear the accusation from right wingers who visit my humble little blog that I use a quotation from a fictitious character at the top of the page to defend my liberalism. It goes like this:

Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things... every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

True. It was a line of dialogue from a character, Matt Santos (played by Jimmy Smits), on The West Wing.

Quoting a fictitious character has one great advantage, however. I don't have to defend his life to anyone:

The conventional strategy in such cases is for the administration in power to avoid talking about a mere radio critic. That would elevate him to the level of the president.

Which, it turns out, is exactly what the Obama team wants.

On Sunday's "Face the Nation," Rahm Emanuel was more than happy to build up Rush: "He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party, and he has been up front about what he views, and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it, and I compliment him on his honesty. But that's their philosophy that's enunciated by Rush Limbaugh and I think that's the wrong philosophy for America."

Rush has this coming, to be sure. He has spent the past thirty years deconstructing, even destroying, good politicians and policies not for the greater good of the nation, but for the greater good of Rush Limbaugh's wallet.

And called himself a "comedian" to boot. Remember, nothing he says should be taken seriously, yet it almost always is by the ignorant rabble that infest this great nation.

I made an observation on another blog yesterday that stupid and evil share a symbiotic relationship. There are sweet spots in this symbiotic relationship which can be and are exploited.

"Wingnut welfare" it's been called: the inability of a certain class of people to get and hold productive jobs has created a class of people whose only job is to mock and tear the rest of us who actually DO produce things of value down.

What do these untermenschen want? To quote Lance Mannion:

They need an alternative history in which being angry, selfish, resentful, greedy, and defensive of nothing but their own right to be angry, selfish, resentful, and greedy is the definition of patriotism and in which instead of standing in the way of progress it's the way to bring it about.

Hear, hear!

The grunt work for this newspeak is done not by the people who most loudly advocate for it, no no! That would be heroic, but it would also mean taking a public stance which would immediately erode their influence!

Instead, the grunt work is done by the commoners, even if those commoners hold fairly respectable positions like Member of Congress, Senator, or even Party Chair. It is they who have to defend him, defend his statements and comments, and ultimately defend his life for him.

These watercarriers genuflect at the altar of the Pronouncers merely because the Pronouncers have a microphone and a network of some sort. Limbaugh has 13.5 million listeners in a single week.

That's not many in a land of 310 million, to be sure, but in a Republican Party that has seen its base contract from roughly parity with the Democratic Party to being ten percent behind the Democrats after eight years of Bush.

In other words, if I'm Michael Steele, I'm not apologizing, I'm sending Limbaugh packing! But 13.5 million people in a party of less than 28 million, he can't do that easily, without destroying the party itself.

It's hard to believe that less than eight years ago, Karl Rove was talking about a permanent Republican majority.

By putting Limbaugh front and center in the line of fire, Emanuel is doing what a draft board could not do: making Rush pick up a gun and defend himself.

We know from Limbaugh's history that he cannot do this, face to face. Remember the time he was to host the Pat Sajak show in 1990, and when confronted by hecklers for ACT UP, they emptied the studio out and a visibly shaken Rush was forced to kowtow to his guests?

And the clue that he has been married and divorced three times tells us that strength in the face of his rageaholism, ultimately, beats him down, that he would rather fail and give up than fight for something, anything, worth having.

Unless he's going to admit that the women he's "loved" are disposable.

Bring the sad, sadistic little clown out of hiding, and take away his microphone and his little studio, with the thick walls and the lonely little sound board. Put him in front of people and make him answer for his hatred and his terrorism.

It's like popping a big fat pus-filled angry inflamed zit: it will hurt to do, but once it's done, you can bandage up and move on.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)