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.)

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.

Get your abortions at the RNC

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Hypocrisy, thy name is... oh, this is just too easy:

The Republican National Committee's health insurance plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party's own platform calls "a fundamental assault on innocent human life."

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC's policy covers elective abortion.

The RNC is apparently "taking steps to address the issue."

Let me just say that insurance plans should cover abortion. It's obviously not the Cigna plan I object to, it's the hypocrisy. And, in a way, it's just like Republicans in Congress enjoying the best health care money can buy while essentially denying even basic coverage to millions and millions of Americans. Ideology is strong, but, for Republicans, self-interest at the expense of others, and even at the expense of one's own principles, seems to rule.

30% of the crazy taken right off the top

By Creature

Actual RNC survey:

"It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?"

Not a concern, but a feature. Democrats, we have been found out.

The ridiculousness knows no end.

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.)

Fox News plays up Obama date night criticism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here are the headline and synopsis of Fox News's article on Republican criticism of the Obamas' Broadway date night in New York:

Obamas' Date Night in New York City Draws Criticism

Even before the Obamas left Washington, the there-and-back trip drew criticism from Republicans who questioned the president's decision to travel to New York for a night of entertainment during a recession and while automakers struggle to survive.

This is, as you might (should) expect from Fox News, incredibly stupid.

First, the only Republican criticism cited comes from the RNC. No specific Republicans are quoted. The RNC is obviously looking to score any political points it can, and, under Michael Steele (but not solely because of him), it has turned itself into a comedy of errors and, for the most part, an irrelevance.

Second, are the Obamas not allowed to do anything normal? Are they not allowed to enjoy themselves? Yes, it's a serious economic crisis, and, yes, many Americans are suffering, but it's not like the Obamas should submit to a life of monastic deprivation and denial. Barack told Michelle he'd take her to a show after the election. That's all. Taking time off, a brief time off, to take in a show does not mean that Obama doesn't care about the economy or about General Motors or about what's happening to ordinary Americans (almost all of whom, I'm sure, like their various entertainments even, or especially, during times of economic crisis and personal uncertainty).

Third, where was the RNC -- and where was Fox News -- when Bush took time off to golf, or clear brush, after 9/11? Was that not a time of crisis? (We were certainly told it was, as Bush and Cheney did their utmost to scare Americans into submission.)

Fourth, what's wrong with going to see a show in New York? The Fox News article lists shows the Obamas could have seen in Washington. But so what? Are they only allowed to enjoy themselves, only allowed to seek out entertainment, inside the Beltway?

Fifth, a date night with his wife hardly takes much time away from Obama's presidency. He works long hours. He is, unlike Bush, a president who is clearly on top of things. Taking a night off (not that he's ever really off the job) to spend some quality time with Michelle, and to relax, is probably just what he needed. And what? Republicans in Washington are avoiding anything resembling entertainment at the moment? While Obama was in New York, they were all reading policy papers and thinking about the state of the economy? Yeah, sure they were. I realize the president is held to higher standards even than a mere senator -- or at least Obama is; I'm not sure Bush was -- but this is ridiculous.

As far as I'm concerned, Obama's "night of entertainment" was fully deserved. But Fox News, like the RNC -- and Fox News is pretty much just an organ of the Republican Party anyway -- is both deeply partisan and anti-Obama, and, here as elsewhere, it rarely passes up an opportunity, even one it makes up on its own, to smear the president. In a time of economic crisis, it is Fox News that is wasting everyone's time and diverting attention away from what really matters.