Tag Archives: Republicans

Failing the midterms

So last night was a bit of a bomb for the Democratic party (and, I’d argue, the well-being of the entire country).   The GOP (read: Tea Party Party) took over control of the House of Representatives, though thankfully didn’t take over control of the Senate.  Also, thankfully, Harry Reid didn’t lose to Sharrrrrrron Angle in his district, which would have made the Repub gloating all the worse on the day-after media circuit.

While I’m disappointed in the results, I’m not that surprised or that dismayed.  While it’s going to be PAINFUL to have to watch John Boehner as Speaker of the House, I don’t think the GOP can inflict much damage in their majority capacity.

If anything, it will be interesting to see how the Republican party will have to step up to actually get something done for a change — rather than all the childish, slamming of feet, saying “NO!” that they’ve accomplished during the last 2 years.

I love how, last night in his “victory” speech, Boehner said that it’s now time for him to “roll up his sleeves” and get some work done in the House.  If only he had that attitude for the last 20 years he’s served as a Representative.

Stay tuned, this political ride is going to get bumpy, methinks.

my kind of rally

genius.

(and, generous!)

What she said:

The ostensibly principled position these folks are taking is that they want smaller government.  They want government to do less.  And just because so many of them are retired Medicare and Social Security recipients who get to their protests in national parks via public mass transit, don‘t let that get in the way of their anti-government message.

When you are shown to demonstrably not believe something you say you believe, that‘s hypocrisy.  And reasonably speaking, it should undermine your claim that you‘re acting on principle.  You can‘t say you hate government-run health care, for example, and then profess your love for Medicare.  It is one or the other.  Or you don‘t make any sense.

link

Misogyny and the Anti-Choice movement

The anti-choice approach on late abortions is consistent with one viewpoint: the misogynist one. Let’s assume for a moment that the motivation behind anti-choice activism is not a love of life or a belief that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a baby. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, they’re motivated by a belief that the main role of women in this world is to be baby machines, and that women should mindlessly reproduce even if it kills them. Is this viewpoint consistent with the focus on late abortion?

Absolutely! If this is how you feel, you’d be extremely interested in portraying women as callous, stupid, and mercurial, then you’d be all about portraying late abortion as something that happens because stupid, heartless, fickle women change their minds 6 months into a pregnancy. You wouldn’t be interested in the truth about the medical indications that lead to late abortions, because in your mind, if they can’t have babies, they should die trying. You’d relish the opportunity to use graphic imagery and language to shut down people’s rational thinking, and get them to react to an “ick factor.” And you’d be indifferent to the suffering you caused real women, like Tiffany Campbell, who had to abort much-wanted pregnancies because of fetal abnormalities—their feelings don’t matter to you as much as the production model of their uteruses.

Misogyny: The Real Root of Opposition to Late Abortion
Amanda Marcotte

Read the whole article, it’s worth it.

Republicans talking sense

A clip that includes Republican politicos that doesn’t include any tea-bagging pandering?!

Granted, I still don’t buy some of what they say, but it’s nice to see conversation without fear-mongering or deliberate misinformation. Let’s keep the talk on policy and not so much on riling (or fleecing) the base.

And don’t you just love King’s mispronouncing of the word, “heretic?” I suppose you get more slack when you’re 200+ years old.

What a difference a page makes

The webpages of the GOP vs. Democratic party:

Who’s up for a rhetorical analysis? Better yet, which “side” would you rather be associated with?

For the larger picture version of the two pages, go here.

“It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.”

President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

[...]Politically, this frustration is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. It may have some legitimate concerns (taxation, the role of government, etc.), but its message is lost in the madness. And now the anemic Republican establishment, covetous of the Tea Party’s passion, is moving to absorb it, not admonish it. Instead of jettisoning the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence, the Republicans justify it. (They don’t want to refute it as much as funnel it.)

There may be a short-term benefit in this strategy, but it’s a long-term loser.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday took a look at the Tea Party members and found them to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country’s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated … than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.” This at a time when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite), less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.

Whose Country Is It?
by Charles M. Blow

More scary GOP stats here – as in, “Two-thirds think he’s a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say “he may be the Antichrist.”