Chuck Todd realizes there are "too many crazy white guys" in the Republican Party

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Actually, it's a party controlled and dominated by crazy white guys, to take nothing away from the craziness of the non-whites and/or non-guys, and it's not just on reproductive rights, which was the specific issue Todd was initially referencing, but on pretty much everything. But credit him at least for going there:

On MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown," host Chuck Todd asked Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, on Thursday about report commissioned by two conservative groups that found that the Republican party is still lagging behind the Democratic party with women voters.

According to the report, obtained by Politico on Wednesday, women said the GOP was "stuck in the past" and "intolerant." The poll found that 49 percent of women view the Republican party unfavorably and 39 percent view the Democratic party unfavorably.

When asked why the party is doing worse with female voters than in 2010, Priebus argued that the GOP can close this 10-point gap by ramping up outreach and focusing on the economy.

"You know, I'm not sure," Priebus responded. "But I think the point of that poll wasn't reported by Politico. The point was if you looked at it, women were rejecting the Democratic party by 40 percent; they were rejecting the Republican party by 50 percent. I don't think either party can do a victory lap here."

He continued to say that Republicans just need to "fight" for the votes by countering Democratic attacks and pushing conservative economic policy ideas.

Todd pressed him on this.

"But the problem you seem to have is when it comes to women voters, do the -- do the arguments about contraception end up blind -- basically putting the party on mute with those same women voters who may like your economic proposals but say, you know what, there's just too many crazy white guys who have crazy theories about my reproductive system?" Todd asked, adding that Republicans have the same issue with Latino voters and immigration issues.

And climate change and fiscal policy and foreign policy and labor issues and health care and...

Raising deflector shields

By Mustang Bobby

You had to know that this would be the GOP response to the New Jersey bridge story:

In an interview on Meet the Press, [RNC Chair Reince] Priebus argued that Americans would forgive Christie after his administration closed part of the busiest bridge to hurt his opponents because “we all make mistakes.”

“They’re forgiving when you take ownership, you take corrective action. And that’s what Chris Christie showed,” the chairman explained. “He stood there for 111 minutes in an open dialog with the press. Now, only if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would give us 111 seconds of that, would we find out some of what we want to find out about Obamacare, Benghazi, the IRS. I mean, Chris Christie has been totally open here.”

Translation: “Oh, look! Benghazi! IRS! A kitty!”

That was a little too much even for David Gregory.

“There’s some deflection going on here, and I respect your position,” Gregory observed.

Very observant, David. Now get up off your knees and do the job of a journalist.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Who said anything about "rebranding"?

By Mustang Bobby 

All that talk about rebranding the GOP after the beatdown in last year's election was just that: talk.  They really didn't mean it, according to RNC Chair Reince Priebus:

Speaking with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network posted today, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus confirmed that the party will try to reach out to groups like gays and lesbians by simply appearing to be more respectful without actually changing its views on issues such as marriage equality.

After Brody said conservative evangelical voters are nervous that the GOP thinks "we have to be more tolerant," Priebus said there is nothing to worry about. "I don't know if I've used the word 'tolerance,' I don't really care for that word myself. I don't have a problem with it, I just think it has another meaning politically that can go the other direction," the party chairman said.

"It's not what you say, I think, it's sometimes – like our moms used to tell us – it's how you say it. And I think that's really the issue. And quite frankly, I think some of that has been overblown."

Priebus assured Brody that the GOP will continue to represent "things that are very square with our beliefs as Christians" and recognize that "there's only one sovereign God."

How very reassuring. For a while there we had a hope that they might become tolerant and open-minded, which would have been a major change and might even attract voters who previously saw them as sniveling patriarchs and bigots who saw the error of their ways. Not to worry; they're still the same old cranks.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Republican rebranding 2.0

By Mustang Bobby

I guess all that talk about "rebranding" and "autopsy" at the RNC really didn't take hold. Even party chairman Reince Priebus is ditching all that introspection about reaching out to women and minorities when it comes to raising money from the gullible and the paranoid.

"The President, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Democratic Leader, and the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (in whose home state this hearing occurred) made funding Planned Parenthood an issue in the 2012 campaign," Priebus wrote. "They should now all be held to account for that outspoken support. If the media won't, then voters must ask the pressing questions: Do these Democrats also believe a newborn has no rights? Do they also endorse infanticide?"

The case in question was testimony before a Florida legislative committee on really vague hypothetical questions about Planned Parenthood's position on what to do if a baby survives an abortion, or something like that. The implication is that PP and all the liberals would try to kill it. At least that's what it sounds like when he uses the word "infanticide." But then, he’s writing to an audience that he thinks doesn't know the difference between a newborn baby and a clump of cells floating around in a uterus.

This is the new GOP model: cynically exploit the ignorant because you think you can get away with it. Every politician tries it, but this brings it to a whole new level.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

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.

Polishing a turd

By Mustang Bobby

(Ed. note: For more on the Republican "fix" for itself, see Frank's post from yesterday, "Occasionally principled thoughtless assholes." See also our post on immigration and how moving to the left slightly is part of the fix, "Don't get excited about immigration reform." -- MJWS)

The GOP doesn't see anything wrong with their party that a quick buff and shine won't fix:

"It's not the platform of the party that's the issue," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said Friday after being easily reelected to a second, two-year term. "In many cases, it's how we communicate about it. It is a couple dumb things that people have said."

A slide presented during a closed-press strategy session said that Mitt Romney might be president if he had won fewer than 400,000 more votes in key swing states.

"We don't need a new pair of shoes; we just need to shine our shoes," said West Virginia national committeewoman Melody Potter.

So as far as they're concerned, it's not what you say but how you say it. So they can still be anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, pro-pollution, pro-mythology and anti-science; they just need to market it better.

Yeah, that's the ticket. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Can Reince Preibus smile? Can he?

By Richard K. Barry

Looks like he's in pain.

There is not a losing political party in the history of creation that has not uttered the words recently said by RNC Chair Reince Priebus, to wit:

It's not the platform of the party that’s the issue. In many cases, it's how we communicate about it.

These words were spoken at an event in which Republicans came together over four days to figure out where to go from here. 

Losers always say this. Absolutely always. Nothing wrong with the message. We just didn't communicate it effectively enough or didn't have the right candidate to communicate it. 

A variant of the argument was articulated by Ohio Republican Chairman Bob Bennett who said that the GOP needs to catch up the Democrats technologically. 

My favourite comment in the Politico story about the event was this:

A big focus of the four-day session, which wraps up Saturday, was adopting a more positive attitude – and smiling! – when interacting with voters and reporters. New Hampshire chairman Wayne MacDonald said party leadings need to work on “not being sour-pusses on television or the radio” – that there is a way to be firm and assertive without being mean-spirited.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. I guess. Oh, my.

GOP plan: If you can't win, cheat

By Mustang Bobby 

The last two presidential elections showed the Republicans that their ideas and candidates are having a tough time winning a majority of the American electorate. The simple solution would be to come up with better ideas and more palatable candidates. So far, though, their solution has make it harder for people to vote with phony scare tactics about voter fraud and gerrymandering districts, sometimes house by house, so that even if the Democrats win the majority of the votes in the state, the GOP still wins the Congressional district.

Now they're working on a way to fix it so that even the presidential election is rigged in their favor: 

The RNC chair is encouraging Republican governors and legislators -- who, thanks to the "Republican wave" election of 2010, still control many battleground states that backed Obama and the Democrats in 2012 -- to game the system.

"I think it's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue [Democratic in presidential politics] that are fully controlled red [Republican in the statehouse] ought to be considering," [Reince] Priebus says with regard to the schemes for distributing electoral votes by district rather than the traditional awarding of the votes of each state (except Nebraska and Maine, which have historically used narrowly defined district plans) to the winner.

Pennsylvania -- the state that has already been to court over its voter ID law that was supposed to "guarantee the election for Mitt Romney" -- is thinking about it, as are several other states like Ohio and Virginia, both of which were won by Barack Obama in the last two elections. (It goes without saying that something will be in the works here in Florida. They've got nothing better to do.)

Democracy: it was fun while it lasted. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Reince Priebus is a fucking genius

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Two thumbs up for my beautiful mind!

As usual, Priebus got to be on TV yesterday, and... and... he... said... something that actually made some sense:

"It wasn't the best said moment in the campaign and probably not the best week in the campaign," Priebus said on ABC's This Week, reflecting on Mitt Romney's comments to donors that 47 percent of the country is dependent on the government for support.

He's right! (Is that a Sign of the Apocalypse?) It wasn't Romney's best moment or best week. He's a genius! Get that man a soapbox from which he can dispense such wisdom all the fucking time.

Ah, but this is Reince Priebus we're talking about, easily one of the most stupid partisans ever to have graced the leadership of the Republican Party. And while stating the obvious obviously wasn't all that much of a stretch even for him, at least this one time, the rest of what he said was the usual sheer and utter nonsense. Like:

Priebus, said it was a "defining moment" for both campaigns.

"I think both campaigns are crystallizing around a central theme which is going to be, 'What Kind of future do we want for our kids and grandkids? What type of America do we want for this country?'" Preibus said. "Do we want the cradle-to-grave-life-of-Julia-Obamacare-will-take-care-of-you-from-preschool-to-death America? Or do we want sort of a return to opportunity, liberty, freedom?"

Priebus added, "Barack Obama has made everything worse."

I get that it's the RNC chair's job to spin the ridiculous, but this is ridiculously demented. It's wishful thinking to think that this "defining moment" will benefit Romney, and of course it's just plain stupid, however predictable, to turn the election into a battle between socialism and freedom. But if Priebus is signalling that this is what the Romney campaign's reboot will mean, well, get ready for a lot more of it.

As for Obama supposedly making "everything worse." Uh...

Perhaps Priebus should ask the tens of millions of Americans who now have access to health insurance, regardless of pre-existing conditions, because of the Affordable Care Act.

Or perhaps he should ask the employees at General Motors and throughout America's domestic auto industry.

Or the gays and lesbians who can now serve openly in the military.

Or the children of undocumented immigrants who no longer face deportation.

Or Osama bin Laden -- oh, wait, he did makes things worse for him. A lot worse.

In case you didn't know, Priebus is a fucking idiot, an embarrassment even by the dismal standards of the RNC chairmanship.

Tribute to Ted Kennedy

By Richard K. Barry

The Democratic National Convention featured a tribute video for the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy on Tuesday night. As Mark Landler of The New York Times writes, the piece featured a section on Mitt Romney's unsuccessful bid to defeat Kennedy in a 1994 U.S. Senate race:

Mr. Kennedy was shown debating Mr. Romney over abortion rights during that campaign. Mr. Romney insisted he supported Roe vs. Wade, a position he later disavowed.

"I'm pro-choice," Mr. Kennedy declared, with a gibe that has been thrown at Mr. Romney many times in his political career. "My opponent is multiple choice."

The video portrayed President Obama as the steward of Mr. Kennedy's legislative legacy, with his passage of longtime Kennedy causes like the health care overhaul and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Kennedy's endorsement of Mr. Obama in 2008 was a crucial imprimatur for the young senator in his battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It seems that the tribute annoyed Reince Priebus, chairman of the RNC, who criticized the video as inappropriate, saying, "Classless Dems use tribute video of deceased Ted Kennedy to attack Mitt Romney."

Only in the world of today's GOP could it possibly be considered classless to draw attention to a position Mitt Romney actually once held with words he actually once said.

I can also only imagine Ted Kennedy would enjoy the fact that he is still, in some small way, in the game.

Here's the tribute:

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Romney's race card and the GOP's new Southern Strategy

By Richard K. Barry

Chris Matthews can sometimes make me crazy, but I was proud of the man yesterday on Morning Joe when he called out RNC Chair Reince Priebus for the particular variant of the Southern Strategy being played out by the GOP with their lies about Obama's supposed changes to welfare rules and equally untrue statements about the reallocation of Medicare funding to Obamacare.

Nothing else is working for Romney, which is why he is playing the "race card," as Matthews correctly pointed out.

There is an excellent piece at The Atlantic Wire by Elspeth Reeve on this shift in strategy.

According to Reeve:

Romney's advisers believe Romney "needs a more combative footing against President Obama in order to appeal to white, working-class voters and to persuade them that he is the best answer to their economic frustrations," The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg reported. And as we pointed out on Friday, if Romney gets 61 percent of the white vote, he wins. If you have any doubt that Romney is playing the race card, check out his YouTube page. There are five ads falsely accusing Obama of gutting welfare reform. The Republican National Committee has put out its own welfare ad. And another three Romney ads say Obama is raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare. The latter ads show white faces and say "you paid in" but now health care is going to somebody else.

Here's Matthews's exchange with Priebus:

(Cross-posted at Lippmann`s Ghost.)

Cage match: Matthews vs. Priebus

By Mustang Bobby

Okay, so I said I wasn't going to waste pixels on the GOP convention, but that didn't mean I wouldn't notice -- and post -- some of the sideshows.

Here's Chris Matthews during a live segment of Morning Joe yesterday opening a can on RNC Chair Reince Priebus for the birtherism and the foreignization of President Obama by the Romney campaign:

Yip yah.

And I love the way the bystanders like Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski are absolutely mortified by such incivility on their TV show. Much pearl clutching ensued. Half a kudo to Tom Brokaw for limply coming to Chris's defense.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Just for laughs

By Carl 

Mitt Romney's pretty much acknowledging he's screwed the pooch.

The nation has met Barack Obama's Mitt Romney. If it's going to meet Romney's version of himself, it will happen this month, or not at all.

It was supposed to start last month, with picked-up ad spending and a foreign trip built around a choreographed Olympic moment. But the foreign trip fell flat amid distractions at every stop, and Democrats continued to break through with their assault on Romney's transparency and business record.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus fired back today on ABC News' "This Week," calling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "a dirty liar" for his unsubstantiated suggestion that Romney didn't pay taxes for a decade.

"This is just a made-up issue," Priebus said. "And the fact that we're going to spend any time talking about it is ridiculous." 

Romney completely misplayed the tax issue, in my opinion. You can hold off on releasing documents -- look at the President and the birth certificate issue -- but you have to have a better explanation than "none of you business." Literally, that's what Ann Romney said, and since Mitt was either dumb enough or smart enough not to publicly walk that comment back, I have to assume he agrees and supports his wife.

After all, win or lose, he has to live with Ann after the election.

I'm sure that what is in those returns is more personally embarassing than politically damaging, and if Romney was as smart as I am, he would have issued those returns in one huge dump, then turned the conversation to tax reform, saying something like, "Look, I'll gladly pay more taxes if the American people decide that there's a determined amount of inequality between the rich and the middle class, so let's have that conversation now." Saying stuff like "paid all I was legally obligated to" sounds reminiscent of Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority."

It's a good thing Mitt didn't wag his finger at the cameras, or suddenly we're in "I did not sleep with that woman" territory.

It's a little hard, too, to deny the American people transparency when you've claimed a) your opponent runs a corrupt and secretive administration, and b) you've demanded past opponents be more forthcoming about their taxes -- even asking one to release her husband's tax returns for full disclosure.

Romney's only real chance at any kind of reboot, and even here, it's warm beer, is his choice for Veep. He could choose a dynamic fighter (like a Rick Santorum) that might energize the base and give that person a leg up in 2016.

After all, no matter what, Romney's already lost this election. His best tactic at this point is to shore up the base, and make them stay mad at Obama and not the party. Sadly, choosing either of the frontrunners, Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty, will have precisely the opposite effect on the Teabaggers and will throw the entire party into a tizzy.

In fact, I'm not convinced that John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was not dictated in large part by the writing on the wall of a large Obama victory.

But to think that Romney can reboot into some sort of competitor for the president is silly. At best, he can burn bridges behind him and slow the juggernaut down. He cannot beat Obama.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Republicans circle the wagons on Romney's tax returns

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt Romney continues to refuse to release any more of his tax returns, remaining curiously secretive and prompting more and more speculation as to why, and to what he's hiding.

And the issue isn't going away, not just because there's so much curiosity and speculation, which is all quite understandable given the sense that Romney is hiding all sorts of things and isn't being honest not just about this but about any number of things, but because of Harry Reid, who suggested last week, citing an anonymous source, that what Romney's hiding is the fact that he didn't pay any taxes for ten years.

Reid's claim is possibly baseless, but it's kept Romney's taxes in the spotlight, and Republicans, judging by the Sunday talk shows, are pissed.

As Politico reports, RNC Chair Reince Priebus called Reid a "dirty liar" yesterday, while Senator and McCain sidekick Lindsey Graham accused him of "lying," adding, "I think he's making things up."

Meanwhile, Virginia Governor and Romney Veepstakes member Bob McDonnell called it "a reckless and slanderous charge" and went on to attack Reid directly: "This is a guy who hasn't released his own returns and for three years, can't get a budget passed in the United States Senate." Last time I checked, Reid isn't running for president and can't get much done in the Senate because of relentless and all-out Republican obstructionism led by Leader of the Disloyal Opposition Mitch McConnell, but no matter. Did I mention Republicans are pissed?

Romney responsed to Reid's claim by challenging him to "put up or shut up." That, of course, misses the point. It doesn't really matter if Reid reveals his source. What matters are Romney's tax returns -- and whether he releases them or not. The ball isn't in Reid's court, it's in Romney's. And while I hope that Reid does indeed have a credible source, his point about Romney, responding to the "put up or shut up" line, hits the mark:

People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes. We already know that Romney has exploited many of these loopholes, stashing his money in secret, overseas accounts in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

When it comes to answering the legitimate questions the American people have about whether he avoided paying his fair share in taxes or why he opened a Swiss bank account, Romney has shut up. But as a presidential candidate, it's his obligation to put up, and release several years' worth of tax returns just like nominees of both parties have done for decades.

Romney and his surrogates can try to make Reid the issue, and try to pin the blame on the White House (which Romney accused of being Reid's source), but this is all about Romney. Even prominent Republicans have called on him to come clean and release more of his returns. And until he does, there is every reason to wonder just what he's hiding.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus goes all Joe McCarthy

By Richard K. Barry

The face of the GOP.

Damn, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus gives me the creeps. I'm not entirely sure how I'd describe him: maybe part Edward G. Robinson, part Eddie Munster grown up but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have a reflection in a mirror. I don't know where the GOP dug him up, but this dude is one dark soul.

Recently, he was being interviewed by John Roberts, who was sitting in for Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. It's worth noting that earlier in his career Roberts was known as J.D. Roberts when he was a music video VJ in Toronto. Judging from this interview, ol' J.D. still has the journalistic chops he developed asking the tough questions to people like Boy George and Olivia Newton John. You know, who designs your clothes, who does your hair, that sort of thing?

I now it's foolish to expect anything from Fox but, as Mediaite points out, Fox News Sunday is a "news" program, not the Hannity or O'Reilly dreck where right wingers are expected to drone on for hours unchallenged. But there was Reince (Reince? What kind of name is that?) talking about how voters have to elect Romney to "save America" and for "the sake of the very idea of America," and for "liberty and freedom" to prevent Obama from doing away with "our way of life."

And there was J.D., looking dapper as ever, letting him go on with nary a word.

Fine. It's Fox. I should expect it. But I am getting so tired of this Tea Party argument from someone who is supposed to represent the mainstream of the Republican Party that to support the kinds of fairly middling policies Obama and Democrats everywhere are offering is to support the end of the "idea of America."

Here we go again. Only Republicans are true Americans. Only Republicans love their country. Only a Republican should be president. Anyone who disagrees ought to be hauled before some sort of House un-American Activities Committee to swear they don't advocate the overthrow of the government. If they take the fifth or give a wrong answer, well, it wouldn't be pretty.

For what has become of the Republican Party, this election isn't about competing ideas of governing. It's a fight to the death between those who believe in America and those who want to destroy her. Given the stakes as Priebus describes them, it actually amazes me that they don't have a plan to take up arms when they lose the election in November. Maybe they do.

I'm just tired of it. It really pisses me off.

Here's creepy Reince:

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Is now a good time to panic?

By Mustang Bobby

RNC Chair Reince Priebus on Fox News yesterday:

The fact is that it's not a question of can Mitt Romney win, the question is -- the statement is Mitt Romney has to win for the sake of the very idea of America. Mitt Romney has to win for liberty and freedom.

And we have to put an end to this Barack Obama presidency before it puts an end to our way of life in America.

Those are not the words of a man who is confident of victory. Those are the words of a man who can't say "Holy shit, our campaign is circling the drain" on network television.

Trying to scare the bejesus out of voters with threats of doom and destruction is the last act of a desperate campaign. Usually this kind of panic sets in about the end of October when the polls show you 20 points down in every state including the candidate's home state. That it's showing up in July, almost two months before the convention, tells me that these folks are already trying to figure out ways to get to the lifeboats so that when the 2016 campaign comes around they'll be able to find work with the next guy. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Conservatives never tire of letting the past be their guide, no matter how awful

By Richard K. Barry 

Not Reince Priebus.

Do conservatives actually listen to themselves when they speak? I'm really not sure.

Reince Priebus, Republican National Committee Chairman, has been doing the circuit recently re-stating the GOP position that while they stand by dignity and respect for gay Americans, that doesn't change their opposition to same-sex marriage.

He went on to say, on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, that:

People in this country, no matter straight or gay, deserve dignity and respect. However, that doesn't mean it carries on to marriage.

Then, as CNN reports, he upped the ante.

I don't think it's a matter of civil rights. I think it's just a matter of whether or not we're going to adhere to something that's been historical and religious and legal in this country for many, many years. I mean, marriage has to have a definition, and we just happen to believe it's between a man and woman.

I just don't know where to begin to challenge the absurd assumption that because something had been true historically, or as a matter of religion, or the law, that this makes it right. Do we even have to talk about slavery, or the way women have been treated over time. Oh, let's see: Women couldn't vote before 1920 in the U.S.; women couldn't work in certain occupations. I don't think I need to go near what various religions have done to women over the great span of civilization to make my point. And then we could talk about women and property rights if we had time. I'm sure we can engage in a similar exercises for all sorts of communities that have suffered discrimination.

Past practice is a very dangerous measure for determining what is right. I'm not denying that it ought to be part of the equation, but a direct translation from past to present is very dangerous.

And then, sounding even sillier, Priebus said this, as he "sought to contrast Jim Crow laws, which enforced segregation, with bans on same-sex marriage," a comparison that naturally comes to mind:

I think there's a big difference between people that have been murdered and everything else that has come with Jim Crow, than marriage between a man and man and a woman and a woman.

So, according to Priebus, the degree of violence suffered by a given group in the past should be a measure determining whether or not the equal treatment they seek is a civil right?

These guys need to work harder than this to make their case. At this point, it's not even an interesting debate.

By the way, that's Aristotle up there, who once offered this gem:

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

Aristotle lived in a society with slavery, so it seemed natural to him that some people were, by nature, slaves. Slaves, he argued, did not have qualities required for leadership, which, as they were treated as slaves, is hardly surprising. But history, the law, and convention told him that this was right, that this is what nature intended. I'm pretty sure he was wrong about that.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elephant Dung #10: Tea Party slams Reince Priebus, RNC

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

Well, that didn't take long, did it? Reince Priebus has only been RNC chair for a few days and already the Tea Party is trying to knock him down: 

While Priebus boasted, during his campaign for RNC chairman, of his good relations with Wisconsin tea party groups, the leaders of those groups give his tenure mixed reviews, with some accusing him of giving only lip service to the movement while stacking the deck against its candidates, shutting them out of the process or working to absorb them into the GOP.

"Priebus will do whatever it takes to co-opt the tea party movement," said Mike Murphy, chairman of a tea party-allied 527 group called The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, founded in late 2009.

In the midterm elections, Murphy's group supported tea party candidates, including some who were undercut by the state GOP, which largely ignored long-shot tea party candidates and endorsed the primary rivals of others at its May convention — months before the primary election.

"He didn't allow for conservative voices that didn't jibe with the establishment view and if he charges down that course (at the RNC), the tea party people will wake up and it may very well split up the Republican Party" coalition that powered the GOP's 2010 landslide, said Murphy.

Interviews with eight other Wisconsin tea party leaders since Priebus's election Friday as RNC chairman revealed similar misgivings about Priebus's handling of the party endorsement process, which they saw as emblematic of the clubby establishment politics that the tea party has railed against since the movement burst onto the scene in April 2009.

Priebus is hardly some wishy-washy moderate. He may be an insider, but his politics are on the far right (and hence well within the mainstream of the GOP).

And yet the Tea Party still doesn't like him? Why?

Well, because he didn't turn the Wisconsin GOP over to the Wisconsin Tea Party, obviously, even if he was more than willing to embrace Tea Party politics.

And that's the key here, you see. The co-opting goes both ways.

The Tea Party accuses the GOP of trying to co-opt it, and, sure, the GOP has very much been trying to do just that, that is to say, to capitalize electorally off Tea Party support, but the Tea Party is also trying to co-opt the GOP, to take control of it and use it to win elected office.

The Tea Party presents itself as against the establishment, but what it really wants is to became establishment itself, specifically within the Republican Party. To put it another way, it wants the counter-establishment to be the establishment. It denies this, of course, but its pursuit of control of the Republican Party, and its pursuit of power generally, would seem to refute its credibility.

Of course, most, if not all, revolutionaries -- and I use the term broadly when referring to Teabaggers, most of whom are either right-wing Republicans or otherwise right-wing anti-government types who are Republican in spirit -- desire power, not merely the overthrow those in power. Simply put, they want what others have, and often want it badly enough to resort to violence. (Read Hannah Arendt.)

I get it. 

But let's stop pretending that the Tea Party is really all that distinct at this point from the GOP. They may not be one and the same, but they need each other and feed off each other, and they're moving closer and closer all the time.

In this case, Priebus is surely more than happy to open the doors of the GOP as wide as possible to the Tea Party. But even that won't be enough. The Tea Party won't be happy until it takes over, until Priebus and the "establishment," however right-wing, bow to its every command.

It's an uneasy relationship, but it's the essence of the Republican Party.

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?