« TPM Limerick Contest | CVille Dem's Blog | Health Care Public Service Announcement -- It's Time! »
The Republicans Have Figured Out What To Do About Their Scandalous Behavior!
Seriously, folks, there is a real discussion going on in the Party of Family Values about what they need to do about all these pols among them who just can't behave. Are they going to have prayer meetings to help their flocks realize the error of their ways? No. Are they going to get strict, and kick people out of office when they behave like randy school-boys? No. Are they going to do some soul-searching and try to be better? No. They are going to change the subject because all that "family values stuff" is coming back to bite them in their collective butts.
Some musings:
...by resorting to that kind of moral values rhetoric," said Mike Maslansky, CEO of Luntz Maslansky, a predominantly conservative communications firm. "I don't say rhetoric as a means of demeaning it. Talking in those terms is a way to appeal to the base. In an election season they find it is a significant advantage to talk in those terms. Maybe for the other three years out of their term they wish that they hadn't."
The GOP, to be certain, will never get to a point where it willfully cedes the moral high ground to Democrats. The social and religious conservatives who comprise a large and vocal portion of the base won't permit such a drift.
"Look, of course, we are the conservative party and we are going to have a conservative message," said Donatelli. "But I do think by talking a little bit more about economic opportunity that we as a party want to offer both at the national and state level, that is what we can do I think to broaden our ranks."
Could it be that they finally have reached the capacity to feel shame? No. I think it is just that they realize they might get called on it.
Some musings:
...by resorting to that kind of moral values rhetoric," said Mike Maslansky, CEO of Luntz Maslansky, a predominantly conservative communications firm. "I don't say rhetoric as a means of demeaning it. Talking in those terms is a way to appeal to the base. In an election season they find it is a significant advantage to talk in those terms. Maybe for the other three years out of their term they wish that they hadn't."
The GOP, to be certain, will never get to a point where it willfully cedes the moral high ground to Democrats. The social and religious conservatives who comprise a large and vocal portion of the base won't permit such a drift.
"Look, of course, we are the conservative party and we are going to have a conservative message," said Donatelli. "But I do think by talking a little bit more about economic opportunity that we as a party want to offer both at the national and state level, that is what we can do I think to broaden our ranks."
Could it be that they finally have reached the capacity to feel shame? No. I think it is just that they realize they might get called on it.
Advertisement
I have tried to edit this 3 times, because the italics didn't show up from my first posting. No changes that I made showed up. Any help?
June 27, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, I just went back on my last post and changed one section to italics to see if it worked, and it did. I just went to the edit screen, made my change and hit save. So whatever your glitch is, it isn't system-wide...
June 27, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you get to the edit screen?
June 27, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go to "blog now" and then "manage" and select "entries," then double click the one you want to edit. That takes you to the "edit screen," but it didn't work for me this time.
Don't know why.
June 27, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still can't get a handle on what being a conservative means. Can you?
June 27, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money (to me. from you.)
June 27, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. I think that they finally figured out that there are consequences.
June 27, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being conservative means being able to drive 44 mph over the speed limit, and when caught, complain that the speed sensors that photographed you are 'camera fraud', and being conservative you start a website 'camerafraud' to gripe about the enforcement of speed limits, fully supported by 'Republicans gone wild' in the legislature, who are also busy passing gun laws that would let anyone carry a concealed gun anywhere, restricting abortion, cutting aid to poor children, while also planing to cut taxes on the wealthy.
June 27, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conservative means never having to admit you are a sorry-ass.
June 27, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being conservative USED to mean family values, strong national defense and fiscal responsibility. Now it means do whatever the hell you want...admit nothing, deny everything, and demand proof. If that doesn't work, (and you hit this one right in the 10 ring) change the subject. Talk about audacity...and hypocrisy...and flat out bull pucky.
Family values have been replaced by "screw everything that walks because, after all, we important men have such powerful libidos we can't be held responsible for what our manly parts do(pause to vomit)" strong national defense has been replaced by the "Toddler Rules (whatever it is, if I want it, it's mine!)and being the world's bully," and fiscal responsibility has been replaced by "only Republicans can spend money."
June 27, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It still means all those things to most conservatives, unfortunately we elect idiots with money. Both sides do it. Do you really think Kennedy is the best, brightest, mind in Mass? It's about money, and name recognition, and people with big egos that will run for whichever side they think will get them elected. Bob Dole said he was a republican because in Kansas, a democrat couldn't get elected. Neither party has an ideology other than get in power, stay in power. There are a few good people, but a lot of scum. But in a country where more people vote for American Idol than President, you get what you deserve.
June 27, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, it's about power, whichever side of the aisle you're talking about.
While I don't have a good definition for liberalism, this post is more about Republicans and their "conservative" values.
It seems to me that conservatism has become, (perhaps it always was) just an empty marketing movement. When subjected to scrutiny, there is no reality to it.
Some Republicans want to erase from memory the Bush fiasco and return to the conservative principles of Reagan.
Like reducing taxes? Reagan imposed the largest corporate tax rate in history and closed corporate tax loopholes worth over 300 billion.
Reducing deficits? The deficit tripled while Reagan was in office.
Reducing the size of government? Reagan added 61,000 workers to the federal government. (By contrast, Clinton cut 373,000)
It's packaging. You can always try to repackage the packaging but you're still left with nothing inside.
I don't think either party is free from hypocrisy. In practice, neither can claim eminent domain of a moral high ground.
Let's shed the absurd centuries-old bromide of "Big government vs Small government".
I'm interested in smart government.
June 27, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan may have cut some loopholes, but he added still more. The net effect of Reaganism was to reduce the tax burden of the rich and big corporations. By a ton. His policies have crippled this country and are still in place, embraced by both parties. I was truly excited at the prospect of Obama, in large part because I thought he would end and then reverse Reaganism.
It looks like he's embraced parts of it, too.
You're right that Reagan tripled the Debt. Carter left him 1 trillion. He left Bush Sr. 3 trillion.
And he expanded government. Both Bushes did even more.
Since 1980, Republicans have accelerated the growth of government far more than any Dem.
. . . .
But, to me, the real question. I really, really can't think of a single thing "conservatives" have ever done to make the quality of life in America better.
I can think of hundreds of things progressives have done to make quality of life better.
Righties? Not one single thing.
I think THAT should be their main question to themselves. When they look in the mirror. When they're not in denial. Can they name even ONE thing they've ever done to make the quality of life for Americans better?
I think even THEY'LL come up empty.
June 27, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe they would say they protect the quality of life of the unborn, but once you're out of the womb, you're on your own:)
June 27, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
But do they do even that?
Even if we grant them their thesis -- I don't -- that making abortion illegal would prevent them, they haven't changed the law.
So, again, what have they done that brings actual benefits to the American people, even using their own standards?
Not only have they nothing to show for their movement, they have actively stood in the way of real progress for decades. Perhaps centuries.
But, when progressives get things done, like shorten the work week from 80 hours to 40, the very same conservatives who fought that change viciously . . . embrace them, take advantage of them . . . . etc.
I mean, honestly . . . what have they ever done to make life better for Americans?
I see them as actively working to prevent positive change, on hundreds of different issues. Which is worse than coming up empty when it comes to making positive change happen.
The conservative "mind" has always baffled me. Their obliviousness to the misery of others, especially.
June 27, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, I learned from your comments.
June 28, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If people could vote multiple times from their phones (and get huge phone banks involved) a la American Idol you'd see more votes for president. This kind of statement is like one I heard at a McDonald's a few years ago. This guy was frustrated because he had to wait a few for his double quarter-pounder. He said, disgustedly, " We can put a man on the moon, but we can't get a hamburger with the french fries." I thought to myself (Does this guy really think the people working here put a man on the moon? What a dope!)
Frankly, if someone is too lazy to go out on one Tuesday every couple of years, they are most likely too lazy to know for whom to vote. They would probably just vote for whomever the person who bussed them in and gave them a coffee and doughnut asked them to. It's bad enough with Diebold and the Supreme Court -- I don't want it any worse than it already is!
June 27, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille, In Firefox:
- Highlight all text in entry body - not title - not recs, between:
- Copy/Paste into text pad
- Find and replace all instances of
- Search for "musings" --> Just after it, and two <br>, insert <i>
- Search for "Could it be" --> Just before it, insert </i>
- Goto MyTPM --> Manage Entries --> This Blog Post
- Make sure that the Format form selector is set to "Convert Line Breaks"
- Select All from Notepad --> Copy
- Select All From this blog post --> Paste
That ought to do it. Let me know.<div class="body">
</div>
Not Inclusive
<span>
AND
</span>
with nothing
June 27, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I'm going to try it when I'm more awake. BTW, I downloaded Firefox, but it crashed so often that I use safari all the time. Do your suggestions still work?
ps I was really disappointed in Firefox because of that.
June 27, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Dad is happy with FF on his Macs, so maybe you had a corrupted download or an idiosyncratic Mac system (small?).
June 28, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if Safari has the view code for selected text feature, which makes this much easier than IE, but it wouldn't surprise me. If it doesn't, just view the source for the entire page, and search for
<div class="body">
Copying the source after that up until you reach the first
</div>
and pasting that into notepad. Do you use an Apple then? If so, you need to use whatever default text editor that comes with it, not a word-processor, because it might rich-text the pastes, and you don't want that.
It's a little more difficult, but you'll see what you posted when looking for it.
June 28, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I lucked out last November. It was my first time to vote in Florida where they urge you to vote absentee.
so, I sent for my ballot, sat down with it and my computer. and my vote was the most educated one I've cast in my life.
I was even able to vote to recall one of the judges who appointed Bush in 2000. what a thrill THAT was! and I wouldn't have known if I'd been voting without the aid of the computer.
I'll NEVER go to polls to vote again.
June 28, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, they all seem to survive. Family value folks seem to have forgiven everyone but Bill Clinton or anyone with a D next to their names. Do you want to bet Sanford will not end up in a right wing think tank making oddles of money? We all claim to abhor hypocrisy, but nothing really changes.
June 27, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not very bright. "world wind", "lightening" etc.
June 27, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just tried again without success. FYI after "musings" everything should be italicized until "Could it be..." which are my own words. Sorry if confusing to anyone. This morning has just been a real WORLD WIND here at my house!
June 27, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/mark-musselwhite-former-g_n_221844.html
That would be former REPUBLICAN....Frankly, I swim naked in my back yard frequently -- who cares? I just make sure my children aren't around, because they definitely care, as in PLEASE! Don't do it! What if our friends see you!
June 27, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The republicans have always been like this, it's just that until now they were better at hiding it, often with the complicity of the press.
June 27, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's the rub. Before the advent of the blogosphere, where anything can be checked and verified, it was easy to come out and and sound intelligent while lying because really, who was going to check? And if someone did check, how was that information going to get out there?
I don't think Republicans have actually absorbed all these ramifications yet. They're still confused by the George Allen 'macaca' thing.
June 28, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does anyone care about Sanford in the first place? What does his sex life have to do with public service? I've never understood this "moral" argument from either side of the aisle.
Why weren't you guys crying about Bill when he was getting blowjobs in the oval office?
June 27, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't feed it.
June 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
THE REPUB CREED:
SAY ANYTHING. JUST DO NOT GET CAUGHT!!!!!
June 27, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or if you get caught blame it on the other guys.
June 27, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHHAHAH yeah. Who else is in the room? hahaha
June 28, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton was an effective President not awol like Sanford.
Bill Clinton was not attempting to tell other people how to live their lives.
The claim from conservatives that I get to tell you how to live your life because I have a blue print from God and then utterly failing to conform to that blue print in their own lives is getting extremely old not to mention ridiculous.
June 27, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can we say after you've said it all? Excellent summary! But it is unfortunately lost on republicans and their knuckle-dragging followers.
June 27, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rex Babin kindly drew us a picture.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/cartoons/gallery/70457-a70847-t3.html
June 27, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one. Here's a question: Is John McCain's infidelity with his current wife okay because of some statute of limitations?
June 28, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only "D" associated with JSM is his grade point average from the Naval Academy so the mSM will not be calling him on it. He might even get Bob Dole's Viagra endorsement if they were to bring it up.
July 17, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thin someone(s) within The GOP are aggressively going after the moralizing new-righty hypocrites in their Party. This could be a power play by more level-headed Conservatives, who have finally gotten a clue about just how completely These Focusing In On YOUR FAMILY hairyticks have polluted the RNC, or possibly some Lifer Republican in the Beltway, who got reamed and screwed by these poseurs, but had enough sense to keep track of the RNCC's skeleton closet, and now is playing Hardball Clue to Get Back at 'Em.
Yes, That's Clue, as in alternative endings, and Mr. Mustard with Mrs. Peacock in the Bedroom using:
The Official Abu Ghraib Interrogators' Model,
Chemical Light Stick Of GOP Enlightenment®
Even Acts of Consensual Sodomy With An Opposite Sex Partner, who is not one's wife is more tawdry than promiscuously propositioning peccadillos privately in a public potty. Maybe Larry Craig is up to some vengeance. Who knows, maybe it will even end-up outing either Mitch 'Chou's bitch' McConnell or Lindsey Graham in the process.
June 27, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh My God! The only squeaky cleans are:
Rick Santorum ( a dolt who hasn't had a legitimate thought in a decade, and
Mitt Romney ( a dolt who hasn't had a legitimate thought in a decade.)
Who's left? Eric Cantor: (he's a dolt who hasn't had a legitimate thought in a decade, and is also Jewish -- not good for the christianistas that are the voting bloc they depend on. It's not the lack of thinking, mind you....they are find with that.
June 27, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mitt Romney went for the Missionary Position, in France no less, as his method for avoiding expossure to the Vietnam Era Lottery Draft. Don't know as if I'd term that "squeaky clean", although quite understandable. It does point out his own hypocrisy in aggressively promoting the GWOT though.
As for Rick Santorum, maybe I should introduce you to my photochop series titled: "The Queer Eye of The Santorum Guy".
June 28, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the precedent has been set for draft-evaders (eg: Cheney) being "acceptably" tough, but I think it is the company (Moromons) that he went to France FOR, that will give him some trouble.
Tell me MORE about Rick!
June 28, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
L00k Here. Also, the old NeoCommix site should be accessible through this URL, later today or early tomorrow. The content is almost entirely dated pre-2008 election through.
June 28, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the point that he is a girly-man fop? He is THAT! I'd be surprised if he is in the closet, but I've been surprised once or twice in my life before.
June 28, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Santorum has compared homosexuality to bestiality; a far-fetched conception, unless one desires to equate their free-will with that of their pets. Animals are not able to give unequivocal consent to sexual acts with humans, making bestiality at the very least; a rapacious act of animal cruelty.
Santorum has also often implied that feelings of homosexuality are inevitable for everyone; a concept foreign to my experiences, and I have at times in the past had a very sexually diverse group of friends, and moments of discomfort explaining to a few gay men, that friendly did not necessarily mean sexually attracted. On the plus side; this provided me with some insight about how female friends might feel if I were to press towards a physical relationship with them.
Santorum seems to believe that when one starts feeling randy towards members of the same sex, they should seek strength in their religion; and since Ricky is a devout Roman Catholic, that means to look for help from an ugly old cross-dresser who wears Red Prada Knock-Offs. Maybe I shouldn't take it out so hard on the former Senator; it's quite likely that my perspective would be substantially different, had I been forced after classes in grade school to help Father Chester trim his candle wick in the rectory, and then shipped off to St. Buggerers All-Boys Preparatory-H Finishing School.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not implying that the myriad of Priestly molesters' sexual preferences can be ascertained from the predominant gender of their victims. That is a predictable effect of no self-respecting Catholic family possessing enough faith to leave good-daughter Sally alone with an odd man who freely chose a life of celibacy.
June 28, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me, I am not misunderstanding at all. The likes of Santorum have made generations of children suffer for uncounted reasons. I just heard a very interesting interview done by Terry Gross, who was interviewing the guy who is the therapist in an HBO program http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/on-hbo-nine-weeks-of-head-therapy/
and she asked how he could be so empathetic. He disclosed that he was brought up in Ireland in the "Christian Brotherhood," which was ostensibly about discipline.
He struck me as amazingly non-judgmental, but his central point was this: Catholic schools, churches, and the entire hierarchy are all about celibacy, which was NOT ordained by god, but was an economic decision by the Catholic Church which did not want a bunch of wives and children to support. What ended up happening was that people who took an oath to give up human warmth and love, were in charge of vulnerable children. They became sadistic because they could.
Santorum is part of the problem and it grieves me mightily that he is paid from a right-wing- bullshit organization. I don't care if he is gay or not. He is totally disgusting, and an imbecile.
June 28, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
said Donatelli, "But I do think by talking a little bit more about economic opportunity that we as a party want to offer both at the national and state level, that is what we can do I think to broaden our ranks."
xxx
uh huh. yeah. 'economic opportunity'. how?
by cutting education? by cutting help to the needy, the homeless, what they call the 'working poor'?
get real.
all they are for is cutting corporate taxes and helping corporations cut benefits to their workers.
oh, and cutting funding for the troops they keep sending into harm's way. and cutting their medical care when they come home maimed in body and soul.
still, if they're gonna finally cut out the pandering to the religious right -- well -- that's SOME progress, at least. I'm not holding my breath, though.
June 28, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
icetee, icetee -- you don't get it do you? TALKING about the economy is all they're planning to do. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? No way.
This is what the great Senator Boner said
See? It doesn't have to even have the smell of truth to it! (and notice the disrespectful "Democrat(ic) colleagues" pronunciation. That is why I will always call him by the way his name truly should be pronounced.
June 28, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry -- that would be icetree!! Didn't mean to dis you, pal!
June 28, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds about right. Republicans seem to be defiant of reality so why should that not extend to the realities of what is fairly typical conduct for our species.
Pretensions about human sexuality is only the tip of the iceberg. In general they have a long way to go. That said, democrats can hardly be credited with holding a big lead on such issues. Which is pretty much a summary of the general disconnect pervasive in our nations capitol. Totally clueless comes to mind.
June 28, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink