144 Comments

1. Keith W. Brown:

First, IF the “old bulls” in the Rep. Party are the useless New England senators & house flunkies that want us to kneel down to the Annointed Messiah, then I agree. They would serve our party & nation better w/ a one way boat ticket to Mozambique or North Korea.

What we need to get rid of, IMMEDIATELY, are all of these “genius” republicans that selected McCain, trashed Palin & think that moderation & cooperation w/ the left wing holding the Congress & White House is the answer. Their stragegy wroked REAL well for the past 3-4 years for the GOP, right?

These people simply do NOT have a clue! Whack ‘em w/ a cattle prod in the rear end so they spill their martinis & send them to the old folks home…

Next, we need to show the nation that we are not the party of corruption, run away spending anymore, or surrender. And finally, present the case that liberal democratic policy has utterly failed in the inner cities of America as well as everywhere else they have been tried. MAKE THE CASE that LIBERALISM HAS FAILED everywhere it is tried.

Then, my friend, we can reach out, & educate minorities to be conservatives. Simple example that Rush gives:

Liberalism is taking 1/2 of a kids toys & money away & giving it to another kid.

Hit ‘em w/ this & all of those failed schools in DC, LA, Detroit, Obama’s Chicago, gang breeding rooms (public housing) & what idiots the feds are with our $. Show ‘em how the democrats think minorities are stupid, cannot think for themselves, & treat them as little fools that need the gov’t to help them tie their shoes & wipe their bottems. This is our only hope. The moderate & RINO wing of the GOP is about to kill us off, if not! WAKE UP GOP…

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:27 am 2. George Cochran:

Great recommendations. We all are going to have to work harder and give more to turn “OUR Party” around. It’s time to clean out the dust bin of tired office holder, and promote young vibrant conservatives.

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:37 am 3. Bob:

This looks like a good, workable plan. The Republicans’ woes can’t be blamed entirely on their lack luster 2008 Presidential candidate or the pop-culture’s embrace of our new President. Michael Steele is well positioned to take on the much needed task of party revival, and I hope he heeds Ms. Rubin’s advice.

Feb 1, 2009 - 4:11 am 4. Reality:

When I read that the RNC had named Steele as their chairman, I had to laugh. This move is so transparent and disingenuous, since the GOP has never seemed to care about black people before. Steele calls himself a conservative, but his political positions as governor of Maryland are moderate to liberal. So what’s the true story on Steele? Are his political positions just telling Marylanders what they want to hear? Or is it that one can’t get anywhere in GOP politics without donning the conservative label.

Steele has said that the GOP has allowed the Democrats and the media to define them for too long. This is pure BS. The GOP has worked long and hard to define themselves and have used weekly talking point memos to get every Republican from Washington to the city council on the same page ideologically. It is the extreme ideology, lack of ideas, and the resulting personal pain that Americans are feeling that got the GOP in such trouble. They have a wonderful opportunity to purge the party of the neo-con elements and redefine “conservatism” – or rather go back to what it once was, which didn’t have anything to do with gay marriage, abortion rights, “family values” or Jesus. Will they do it? That remains to be seen. One thing is certain: pulling and “us too” stunt of electing a black man as their chairman isn’t going to be enough. GOP policy has long been detrimental to blacks and all other minorities and they know it.

Feb 1, 2009 - 5:15 am 5. Still Bill:

I believe Michael Steele will be a great leader of the RNC, but I can assure you he won’t be getting the same kind of rear-end kissing treatment the MSM is giving to the empty suit and empty underwear occupant of the White House. I now intend to donate $100 to the RNC and $100 to Sarah Palin’s PAC. I would give more, but right now I’m paying the bills on a three year old thoroughbred filly who up to this point hasn’t had a race and hasn’t earned a dime. If that beautiful chestnut filly eventually sends me to the poor house, I might have to go on welfare and become a Democrat.

Feb 1, 2009 - 5:22 am 6. Mongoose:

It’s moe likely that the Democrat’s Man of Clay Will probably do more to “revive” the GOP than Michael Steele ever will. I was though certainly relived to see his appointment. Not because of his race, but because he is a real person that has his head on straight and, for all I can gather, seems to have a good character.
The certainly needs to move the old “get along” Republicans and the Rockefeller remnants down the road towards retirement.

That being said, let me suggest that Republicans should cease putting out this “revive the party” meme. It plays into the hands of the enemy; indeed, the Left started this meme in the first place. This is a right of center country at heart no matter how many people managed to get themselves hustled by the the Obamabots.

They act like they have never lost an election before. Republicans should stop focusing on personalities and focus instead on the true nature and intentions of the Democrat Party and strategies and tactics it uses to achieve these intentions. The Democrats, and their co-religonist across the globe, have been conducting a War against the West for at least 100 years. This campaign has used strategies straight out of subversion cookbooks of Lenin, Stalin, Trotski, Mao and Alinski. They are not joking, they are not the “loyal opposition”, and we need to understand what they mean and fight a way to stop it once and for all.

This is a War against American lead by American Communists, no matter what they call themselves or how mask their intentions. It is not a case of the Democrat’s having well meaning, but fuzzy headed ideas. It is not a case that they are just corrupt but bubbling machine politicians hustling up a few bucks from the rubes. Yes, there are these elements to the Democrat Party, but this is most decidedly not the case when we consider the core beliefs of the prime movers and shakers of the Democrat Party and the motivated cadres which the influence and command. There is nothing at all fuzzy headed about their beliefs and notion could be less well-intentioned: They mean the destruction of our way of life, and they know how to do it. Right now they are attacking the Dollar itself, and are about to seize one of the central parts of the very core of US capitalism, the financial industry. We are in a battle for the very existence of the Republic, and do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

This needs to be brought home to the American people in as clear and unambiguous a manner as possible.

It is not a case of a particular face or a particular marketing ploy. It is not about reacting to Democrat socialist programs with “alternative programs” that are merely slightly less socialistic. This just leads to incremental and inevitable victory for the collectivists. Likewise, responding to the racial politics of the Left by way of appeasement in will also eventually leads to their victory, and to respond in kind with some sort of “White Power” mimicry of the Democrat’s decisive race baiting has profound moral hazards not matter how success such a strategy might be. These tactics are not worthy of the Party of Lincoln, martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan.

In fact, racial politics are a strategy that the Democrats use to undermine freedom, they are not about freedom at all. To address race, it would be better to show simply and clearly what they are up to rather than to play to their game.

The GOP must understand that the Republic is facing an internal enemy, not merely that they have political opponents.

Feb 1, 2009 - 5:23 am 7. Mongoose:

moe likely- most likely

Feb 1, 2009 - 5:23 am 8. Bilgeman:

Ms. Rubin:

“First, Steele should offer to debate DNC Chairman Tim Kaine coast-to-coast on the Democrats’ stimulus plan and the economic crisis. ”

It’ll never happen. I’m familiar with both of them, and Steele would mop the floor with Virginia’s own “Guv’nah Eyebrow”, (who is VERY GOOD FRIENDS with the Longshoremen’s Union.).

But I’d buy a ticket to watch, if it ever came to pass…

Feb 1, 2009 - 5:50 am 9. Mariann Pepitone:

I believe that Steele was the right choice for the republican RNC. He is very well educated, knows politics and will have many people thinking about the next election. He should have been chairman a long time ago. Being a good christian man and a former governor, I am sure he would not agree to funding abortion clinic’s. The democrats are spending billions of dollars in bailout money. California is now bankrupt because of spending. Obama has to cut the bailouts and companies should face their losses. Raising taxes is not the answer to our problems. The auto industry, food industry, clothing industry, interest rates on mortgages and credit cards are all out of control along with the price of gas. Overdrawn bank fees are also out of control. The federal reserve should limit the fees to $15 not $35. Gas companies and electric companies should give a discount to senior citizen’s. I live in Chicago and Stroger should have been voted down on his tax increase to 10.5. Believe me Chicago is one of the cities that needs drastic changes at city hall. I could write a best seller on it. We need to go back to when your income was greater than your payouts. The president cannot change the economy unless there are changes in what I stated above.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:01 am 10. Mariann Pepitone:

mongoose: You and the rest of your young generation that voted for Obama and going to get a good setback. Steele knows more about politcs that Obama hasn’t learned yet and will have to be taught by Clinton’s administration. What do you think he chose them. He lacks everything in politics and foreign policy that he should have known by now. Plus wait until the people get to know Steele better the black people will start to open their eyes. They will see the difference in him and Obama. Obama is no match for Steele and I am hoping since Steele is not a committee member he will run for the presidency in four years because Obama is going to make some good blunders within the years.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:11 am 11. freetoken:

It will take more than a charismatic figure head to help rebuild the Republican party. While the suggestions given (of bringing Newt in to brainstorm and Romney to audit) may bring some fruit, they don’t address the key issues of truly building a party from the ground up by bringing constituencies together. In other words, a few well known names don’t address the need of everyday people to buy into their local political organizations which must likewise serve their needs.

So, perhaps the best thing to do is have the GOP stare at its navel for a while longer, and wrestle over policy and constituencies.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:15 am 12. Mariann Pepitone:

Still Bill: I agree with you in everything you said. I remember one comment on the ABC board that Obama duped the American people. Obama learned the tricks of the trade by having close ties to corrupt people. Steele wouldn’t give those people the right time of day. Plus a turn for the worst is coming. We haven’t seen anything yet. I didn’t vote for Obama so I won’t kick myself when it comes. And I believe that if Steele wants to run for the presidency in four years it would be the race of a lifetime. With his knowledge and intelligence he is sure to win.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:33 am 13. Mariann Pepitone:

The way I see these comments against Steele, he must have put a fear into the democrats that voted for Obama. There is nothing to fear. This younger generation voted for Obama thinking he was like them because he took drugs and booze like they do in college. Of course a first time voter don’t know the time of day because not voting prior what would they know what is best for the country. We are in a mess that Obama doesn’t know how to clean up. It wouldn’t take Bill Clinton or Steele to know what to do first. That’s what you get when you vote someone who lacks knowledge in all phases of politics and foreign policy. Plus he should call for Clinton’s help in balancing the deficit. The dummycrats he chose are lucky to balance their checkbook.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:41 am 14. Mongoose:

Mariann, I have grandchildren.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:45 am 15. Mongoose:

mariann I hae not voted for a Democrat in 30 years.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:46 am 16. Mongoose:

mariann: I think you should reread my post. Your reactions suggest that you misunderstood me.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:48 am 17. Mariann Pepitone:

Reality: And what position do you hold right now. Why don’t you start campaigning for mayor, governor or senator. That is if you have any knowledge at all. And those that make comments about Steele, what jobs have their parent’s held in their lifetime. Steele and Palin accomplished more in their lifetime than this generation of college students today. Many of them are as dumb as they come and many have dropped out because they can’t pass the exams. Too much drugs and booze. Didn’t Obama take drugs and booze himself? What a background for a president of this country. Don’t think in your mind that he isn’t corrupt. Read his bio sometime. He played dirty pool against the woman that ran for the senate, took her to court and won the case. She is the same woman that recommended him at one time. Obama is arrogant and deceiving and it will all come out eventually. Changing the rules on abortion clinic’s. Another baby killer. What other mistakes is he going to make.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:51 am 18. Mongoose:

Freetoken: While I agree, I would like to point out that the grass root organization can be built a lot faster than you may think, particularly if the democrats continue down this path of arrogant over-reaching. The focus now should be on getting back the hill ASAP; let the various GOP personalities go out and speak to each of their faction ad develop them–just keep a unified message.

The big problem, of course, of getting round the MSM. Act local. Get Creative. Keep trying. Do not rely pn a “Master Global Media Plan”.
Change the media game. Palin came close to doing this. Work it out.

I maintain though that we do have a big advantage: Americans really do not want a Communist State or to be ruled by a entrenched political oligarchy. They just need to have it pointed out to them what the Obamaots and Dems are up to.

The GOP needs to stop with the euphemisms and start calling the Democrats out on their true program.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:58 am 19. tanstaafl:

I admire Michael Steele and consider him personable, energetic and honorable.

One of his ideas (he said last week) is to promulgate the notion that his party is the party of all Americans. I would caution against a downslide into the Democrat morass of identity politics and hope that the party never loses sight of the fact that principles cut across and unite all people.

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:03 am 20. atlargeinohio:

#4 reality

You need to read some real, unbiased historical facts. (Not “facts” off the internet). The majority of blacks were Republicans before the race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and many, many others started their con job on not only the black community but all Americans. Martin Luther King was a Republican and Republicans including President Dwight Eisenhower fought for the 1957 Civil Rights Act. John F.Kennedy voted against the Act while he was a senator. Kennedy also opposed a King march on D.C. in 1963. Have you heard those stories? Democrats were behind the fire hoses turned on blacks and segregation in general in the period before the mid-1960’s. People say that the Democrat party has changed, but socialism is still socialism. The facts are not being fairly played in the mainstream media, so you have a populace that is being “conditioned” to think of the Democrats as saviors of America. Let’s see what they do now that they are in the majority. I will wager right now that the (slight) majority of Americans that elected this new administration into office have little to no idea what they really voted for. People have been fed the story so long that “Bush was an illegitimate Emperor” and myriad falsehoods about his administration that are taken for granted because so many outlets parrot the stories. History will tell, if history has any factuality to it in the future as written by a nation controlled by this present administration and what may be to follow.

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:21 am 21. johnc:

Reality: It is apparent you are a product of the “Publik Skol” system!
You might want to check your history that was never taught to your lack luster generation.
It was the Democrats who were and still are the party of racism and segragation!
Even Al Gores daddy filibustered the ‘64 voting rights act!
It never fails that when you socialist look at failure you quickly pull the old race card. LOL!

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:21 am 22. atlargeinohio:

Go Michael Steele! It’s time for a new birth of freedom!

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:25 am 23. atlargeinohio:

Oh, and in post #19 I realize that when I say “socialism is still socialism”, I realize some of you will think that that is a good thing.

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:29 am 24. atlargeinohio:

Er,sorry, post #20 is what post #23 is referring to.

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:30 am 25. Peter Verkooijen:

The Republican party got itself stuck with an unsellable brand: conservatism. Nobody under 40 wants to be a conservative. It sounds like canned food, stale, old.

The Dems have brands like attractive brands “liberal” and “progressive”, which mean freedom and forward-thinking. Liberalism originally was the ideology of the Founding Fathers; capitalism, free speech, separation of powers, rule of law, democracy, minimal government, etc.

Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas in the 1940s:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

That’s what happened, specifically after 1968. Socialists in the Democratic party have coopted liberalism. The Republican party at the same time through the southern strategy became the conservative party.

There’s now nobody left to defend classic, pro-capitalist liberalism. The Dems are socialists, Republicans are social conservatives, old southern white men.

That explains the success of a nutcase like Ron Paul and in general “libertarianism” with young enterprising urban people. And many young people supported Obama truly believing he was an enterprising kinda guy.

The Republican party needs to reclaim liberalism, true classic liberalism, and start labeling the Dems with the s-word.

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:32 am 26. Peter Verkooijen:

@atlargeinohio, you’re absolutely right. The Republican party should find ways around the hijacked education system to teach some basic history lessons. Put out YouTube videos with the real history of the Republican party, separating fact from fiction and really holding the Dems accountable. It’s outrageous the lies they get away with.

Start with loudly reclaiming Lincoln before Obama has solidly coopted him in the public’s mind. Lincoln was one of us. We’re the party of Lincoln.

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:47 am 27. colin wilkinson:

The GOP had a great minority Congress candidate in Minneapolis. Her name is Barb Davis White she ran a very energetic campaign against Rep Keith Ellison. The party gave her no support. This kind of foolishness must stop. The GOP must make credible campaigns in the cities of the USA or we will always be the loser party.

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:51 am 28. Jeff Weimer:

Everyone, please don’t feed the troll, Reality.

Actually, he (or she) less less of a troll and more like a Canada Goose – they drop in with a lot of flapping and noise, dump all over the place, and leave a mess for us to clean up. Enough of them in the right spot, they can get in the way and cause a crash.

Feb 1, 2009 - 8:14 am 29. NCBob:

I believe Steele was a poor selection at this time specifically because he is black. The left wing racists will marginalize him just as they did Clarence Thomas. Watch Dowd or some other idiot compare Steele to the Magic Negro and portray Steele as an Uncle Tom who is betraying his race.
Steele’s frequent appearances on mostly Fox will give the bad guys the opportunity to describe him as the black Limbaugh.
God bless and protect Steele, God bless and protect us all!

Feb 1, 2009 - 8:35 am 30. johnc:

Hey Peter, I’m proud to be a Conservative! What’s wrong with following the Constitution and being for those things called Liberty, Individualism and Independence? I realize that in todays Amerika those are dirty words but old white guys like me still like them! By the way I’m under 50! so I will be a thorn in these socialist pigs side for a long time,LOL!

Feb 1, 2009 - 8:52 am 31. Still Bill:

To Mariann Pepitone: Thanks for your comments. When I was growing up, the Chicago Cubs had a first baseman named Joe Pepitone, formerly of the New York Yankees. If he is related to you and still alive, tell him I said hello. He was a dead pull hitter and a great glove man at first base, and one of my all time favorites. He probably imbibed in adult beverages a little bit more than he should have, and chased after women (or maybe they chased him) a little bit more than he should have, but he was one player I would pay admission to the ballpark to see play.

Feb 1, 2009 - 9:04 am 32. Delia:

I like this man a lot. He’s well-spoken and he has a pretty clear, conservative mindset.

The problem is… You’re damned if ya do and damned if ya don’t. If we have a Black man at the helm of the Repubs… will it be seen as just one more race card ploy? Or, is it perfect checkmate to the race-bating bullfrickery from the lefties? It’s tricky dickery but I really like this gentleman. His talk is on point.

Feb 1, 2009 - 9:33 am 33. Self-hating Boomer:

And Republicans have an attractive message: cut the pork, reduce taxes, and, if we must spend gobs of money, do it on worthwhile infrastructure and needed national defense projects.

There’s a trap in there. I don’t know who has been proposing “worthwhile infrastructure” projects, but much of the criticism of the package from the right has been over the fact that infrastructure projects, in Thomas Sowell’s words, are like sending a letter to the fire department informing them that your house is on fire. In other words, if it’s a worthwhile infrastructure project, it’ll be a worthless stimulus move, and vice-versa.

Time to keep cool heads, and not go off in six different directions. If you want stimulus, do stimulus. If you want infrastructure, do infrastructure. The twofer is a mirage. We can’t possibly mobilize these infrastructure projects in time for them to be of any stimulus value.

Feb 1, 2009 - 10:02 am 34. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

At the 2012 Republican National Convention, Americans shouldn’t see a homogeneous sea of all white faces.

Good bleeding luck. If Steele can figure out how to trump tribal psychology, he’ll be the greatest genius in politics in history. It would be a monumental achievement if he could attract 30% of white-skinned Jews. Getting large numbers of racial minorities, when the competition is peddling “this for this group, and that for that group” is going to be like selling sand to the Saudis.

Feb 1, 2009 - 10:09 am 35. Maryland Conservative:

Michael Steele was Lt. Gov of Maryland, not Gov. The Gov was a moderate. Steele is a very pro-life conservative. He was chairman of the state Republican committee before being named Lt. Gov. He didn’t just get pulled from a hat. He needs someone like Mitt Romney to speak on economics, as speaking about this is not Steele’s strong point. He is a very good man whose social security number was stolen by Dem operatives (under Chuck Schumer) and used to search all kinds of records they had no right to see. Turned out that Steele is squeeky clean, unlike so many Dems.

Feb 1, 2009 - 10:26 am 36. Cybergeezer:

For starters, lets compare Steele’s preachers to Obama’s. This man could replace Obama at the flick of a switch, and the stock market would go off like popcorn. With extra butter, too. (Well, I can daydream).

Feb 1, 2009 - 10:30 am 37. plendur:

Yeah, okay; very nutsy-boltsy. But where’s the talk in the article and in the posted responses about the ideas the GOP should be promoting? How about talking about liberty and freedom? The dims are the enemies of these.

How about the ideas conveyed by words such as these:

“If we look to the answer as to why, for so many years, we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here, in this land, we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.

It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We are not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength. And let us renew our faith and our hope.”

Those words and many more like them are in Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural speech, and in all of his speeches and writings. They are a constant ostinato, and a timeless rallying cry. See: http://reagan2020.us/speeches/First_Inaugural.asp

Let the Hussein/Marxists make fun of them. I’d love it, and any party chairman should, too.

[Apologies for not knowing how to create a proper link in this forum.]

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:00 am 38. LawhawkSF:

Two thoughts based on my too-many years of activism on the periphery of politics.

For those of you who think that all older Republicans are from the Rockefeller wing, think again. I’m a conservative by choice, a Republican by default. And who do you think brought Reagan into the White House? We’re older and more experienced today, but we’re still conservatives. I think our candidates need to be younger, more vibrant yet old enough to have a track record. If we start dividing into young Turks and old guard, we will continue to lose. The Dummiecrats were smart enough to use their old sharks to elect a young non-entity. The target within our party is the RINOs, not the old-timers versus the rookies. For me: Go Jindal!

As for Michael Steele’s color. He would have been a wonderful choice if his skin was purple with orange spots and he had two heads. He was my first choice for the VP spot to offset the aging RINO who led the ticket. Not because he is black, but because he is a conservative (which McCain is most certainly not). Our new RNC Chairman is black, and unlike Obama, he isn’t confused about it, nor will he use it as a crutch. The first time they call him an oreo, he will hand the lefty punks their teeth, in a very gentlemanly manner of course. And by the way, Michael Steele is young by political standards. And to clear up any thought that I might be excluding Republicans based on race, creed, color or prior condition of servitude, the only thing that made me enthusiastic about voting R in the general election was Sarah Palin. Her lack of political sophistication was her weakest point, but her enthusiasm and common-sense conservatism were without equal.

The election of Michael Steele is the beginning of a long march back into power. And if we wince every time some race-baiting Democrat says his nomination and election were cynical, we’re dead. Throw it right back in their faces. What qualifications did Blecch Obama have for the nation’s highest office except that he’s black? Now THAT’S cynical.

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:00 am 39. lee:

Steele (from what I’ve heard about him) appears to be a poor man’s John Mccain. That’s not a good thing.

Democrats will ridicule this move as some desperate attempt to leech off Obama’s popularity or “diversify”, the lack of diversity always a ready made argument against the party. If Steele is indeed a token “minority” candidate, he’ll hurt the republicans.

Remember – most minorities (especially older generation latinos and Asian immigrants) are conservatives. They adhere to old world values from their culture that’s consistent with the GOP’s (often anti communist) ideals. You don’t have to win the majority of non whites to win. Rally the 30-35% of Latinos in swing states, and you can be competitive once again.

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:02 am 40. MikeInHecker:

As a secound generation chicano I need no further education on conservatism. I resent the marginalization forced upon us by the hispanic label. Electing Steele as the GOP chair is symbolic. The base of the GOP will never change. If a third party is created to include moderate republicans, swing voters, and conservative democrats, the GOP could form a coalition and rule. As long as people can remember this economic disaster the GOP with Limbaugh, and Palin as their flagbears, and someone like Steele as their front man, will remain irrelevant.

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:18 am 41. sambo hux:

Here he comes, Black Jesus, descending from the heavens to save our poor, misguided selves. The anointed one! The messiah! We’ve been lost in the desert since 2006, but no longer. Our savior has arrived! Bow down before him and praise his name – Saint Michael of Steele. One problem . . . I don’t think he’s black enough. Or maybe he’s too black. I’m not sure, I’ve never actually SEEN a black person up close. What about his drug use as a teenager? I shouldn’t say this but my father plays golf with high-level Republicans in the RNC who say Michael Steele is actually Tom Delay in black face. I’m not saying that. I’m just saying some people say that. In any case, I demand to see his birth certificate.

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:36 am 42. Delia:

sambo hux, if you want to bring on the ridiculous…at least make it entertaining. Your rant lacked.

There are some really intelligent repubs and some not so much and racial make-up has nada to do with it.

The smarter, better educated and more self-reliant minorities become the more they will realize that conservatism is the way to go.

The problem lies in the dumbing down of our country…this is why we have a blatant Usurper as president because nobody cared or bothered to really give Obama the tough questions. The media spoon fed him manna rather than matter.

Feb 1, 2009 - 12:05 pm 43. Jeff Perren:

The article suffers from the same problem as the GOP: lack of understanding or emphasis on fundamental ideas as movers of movements.

Recommending face-lifts of the sort the Democrats love, like pandering to ethnic groups, is foolish. Advocate equality under the law for everyone.

Embracing “new ideas” in particular strategy is fine. But the ideas the GOP needs to become the majority party for the next 100 years already exist; they’re in the Constitution, the works of von Mises, et al.

“Freedom” should be the number one, enduring one-word slogan of the GOP, and there is only one major institution threatening it at the moment: the government. Underlying that threat is the cultural support of a 100 years of the wrong philosophy: Progressivism.

You can’t win if you don’t know who the enemy is and what you’re fighting for. Superficial recommendations like those exemplified in Ms. Rubin’s article are responsible for the GOP – and the country’s – current situation. Better philosophy, and the courage to speak it consistently and unapologetically – is the only way forward.

Feb 1, 2009 - 12:30 pm 44. DaveP.:

MikeinHecker, have YOU brought as many Republican voters into the tent as Rush and Sarah?

No?

Have YOU helped make as many Republican victories as Rush and Sarah?

No?

How did YOUR Moderate Republican President, Congress, and Candidate do in elections, ‘06 and ‘08?

Horribly?

Yep. I think we can ignore advice from a loser.

Kick the Moderates over to the Democrats they hold allegiance to, start actually PRACTICING Conservatism instead of just paying lip service to it every election cycle, and start winning elections.

“The problem with the Big Tent is that it’s filled up with clowns and donkeys…”

Feb 1, 2009 - 12:31 pm 45. sambo hux:

Delia . . . Delia, Delia, Delia . . . can I call you Delia?

You write, “There are some really intelligent repubs and some not so much and racial make-up has nada to do with it.”

Did you SEE the Republican National Convention? I’m not saying there aren’t smart Republicans or smart black Republicans. There just weren’t any blacks at your convention, so apparently race make-up DOES have something to do with it for conservatives.

Here’s a tip, straight up and all kidding aside . . . The Democrats have figured it out. They can win with women, blacks and Hispanics. Blatant racial pandering of the Steele sort only exacerbates your problem, because we know it’s disingenuous. How do we know? Because the two biggest stories on the Republican side this year were the Palin family and Joe the Effing Plumber – you know, “real” Americans. Well, as we saw it was “real” Americans who just voted you out of office.

As for dumbing down the country, all I have to ask is this: Who would you rather have as president – Sarah Palin or Barack Obama?

Feb 1, 2009 - 12:37 pm 46. Merie:

Michael Steele biggest challenge will be fund raising. All the previous RNC Chairman left the RNC with huge surplus of over 20 million. Steele has to show that he can raise huge amounts of money and not run a deficit. He needs to start hitting the ground running now.

On another note I find it interesting that both Major parties now have a Pro Life candidate at the top of the Committee – DNC Tim Kaine and now RNC Michael Steele.

Feb 1, 2009 - 1:07 pm 47. syn:

Anyone going to deal with ACORN?

Is the GOP prepared to deal with $4 billion worth of tax-funded 24/7 ‘Get Out the Democrat Party Vote’ campaign?

Or has everyone already forgotten the massive voter fraud infecting our electoral system.

Feb 1, 2009 - 1:13 pm 48. Chomskiseemsright:

To Fred Brown: “Liberalism has failed everywhere it is tried”. Forget about liberal and conservative. The terms are irrelevant and divisive, unless you believe that Bush’s policies were conservative (or Reagan’s for that matter). If you want a proven example of failure, I would say the last 8 years pretty much nails it. We are in debt to a communist country, the economy is the worst since the great depression. We have 140,000 military in a country which we invaded, understandably pissing off Arab people even more than we already had, not to mention killing thousands of civilians, and we have a socialized economy for banks and insurance companies and large automobile manufacturers. Your anticipated reaction is that the congress is to blame. Whatever, but we had a Republican in charge the last 8 years and “conservatives” voted him in-twice. Has Obama lied about things?- I would be real surprised if he has not. He has only been in office about a week and Rush is fear mongering about liberals taking us down the tubes. We are already down the tubes. Calling names in a loud voice is not productive and Rush has taken it to a destructive high level.

Feb 1, 2009 - 1:16 pm 49. Old Country Boy:

#4 Reality: “This move is so transparent and disingenuous, since the GOP has never seemed to care about black people before.”

Your point has validity and is well taken, but not because the Republicans don’t care about black people. It is the MSM and the public schools that have lied and misled the black people about that. Talk to older black people; they will tell you differently. In addition, your own ignorance is showing. The Republicans:
1. Fought a civil war freeing the black slaves.
2. Had the first black senator in the modern era (also the first female).
3. Had the first two black secretaries of state.
4. Had the first memeber of a national committee. (JC Watts)
5. MLK was a Republican.
6. Passed the first modern civil rights act.
7. Called out the federal forces to enforce integration.

The only things the Republicans have not done is to keep blacks in thrall to the welfare state for their vote, use the school system to keep them subjigated. Nd many other .

Feb 1, 2009 - 1:36 pm 50. Missy:

I agree with pretty much everything in this article, except perhaps that I would join those cautioning that an attempt to specifically attract women and minority voters could slide into Democrat-styled-identity-politics. I think that if the message is positive and delivered with enthusiasm, emphasizing how conservative principles all uphold the central American ideal of liberty for all, people of every creed and color will be drawn to it. You know, “If you build it, they will come.”

Remember, the Democrats are always selling services that they can’t provide, making promises on which they can’t possibly deliver. Success always follows the implementation of GENUINELY conservative principles – teach the history, win the fight.

Feb 1, 2009 - 1:40 pm 51. robotech master:

To 45: smabo hux

Clearly you didn’t see the repub convent since their were blacks are it quit a number in fact… unlike another convent… clearly the huge numbers blacks in this picture prove so much…
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/var/plain_site/storage/images/multimedia-center/all-slideshows/2008-democratic-national-convention/2008-democratic-national-convention/129473-1-eng-US/2008-Democratic-National-Convention_slideshow.jpg

The simple fact is unlike the dems which repeatably kicked ppl out of photo ops SOLELY BASED ON THEIR SKIN COLOR the repubs did no such thing.

Feb 1, 2009 - 1:48 pm 52. Still Bill:

To MikeInHecker: You sound like a victim of some right wing conspiracy to keep you down. Are you a “chicano” descendant of slaves? I’m tired of hearing excuses. I’ve been hearing this crap from a certain segment of our population for a long time, and, frankly, the “excuse game” is starting to wear a little thin. If you can’t cut it in this country, I can tell you who to blame: Look in the mirror.

Feb 1, 2009 - 1:55 pm 53. paul_unalaska:

‘..dumbing down the country.. ‘Obama or Palin’? sambo hux, Obama won the election DUE to the dumbing down of America. Obama hadn’t won due to his stances on issues, strategies to resolve issues or his not-so-popular stances on difficult issues. He won because he told the Baby boomer’s wanna-be flower children what they wanted to hear! ‘Hope’, ‘Change’, ‘8 years of a bad adminsitration..’ You know, the same drivel their Poly Sci professor or other ill informed public servants drill into their head.

I don’t watch the RNC and go out of my way to scan the masses for a myriad of races amongst their ranks.

If race, character is so important to your viewing the RNC, look at JC Watts’ ‘96 RNC speech, you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

again, I’d hoped JC would throw his hat in the ring in the Presidential election. HE has some merit to his accomplishments compared to teleprompter guy.

If Michael Steele lays out the party’s agenda in a lucid manner, and quashes the silly ideologies associated with conservatism, the party will be the better.

Conservatives don’t resemble what commenter #25 described. Nor do Conservatives resemble the Barry Goldwater ala 1964 either.

I’m 33, married, long haired with a beard in a white collar-type profession. As well as a guitarist in a metal rock band.

A proud Conservative of 15 years, since being able to pencil in the bubble of my candidate. I, like Michael Steele and millions of others buck the establishment for its ridiculous labels and assumptions. Give ‘em hell Mike!

Feb 1, 2009 - 2:04 pm 54. Tim Garrett:

I am an independent voter who for the first time supporter a republican in a Presidential election. I think these ideas are great for the Republican Party. But they didn’t address a now predominant question for the party. Does it shift to the center and follow the likes of Moderate Republicans like John McCain? Or does it “return to the roots” and try to rebuild the base. Many are saying things such as “well look where following the Moderate plan got us with the nomination of John McCain. Well let me tell you, if you think any other Republican could have done as well or remotely better than McCain, you are NUTS. The only reason he didn’t get KILLED was b/c of his Moderate and bipartisan image. And it was the ‘reformer’ image he was trying to appeal to with Sarah Palin and that actually worked immediately following her announcement. But once her extreme right views came to light (and of course the economy worsened), he sunk back down in the polls.

I honestly think it comes down to two issues. Abortion and gay rights. At least for us young independents (I am 26). It is those two issues that instantly will put most of my peers into the democratic column. They won’t even look at you guys. When your true ideology of small government, less taxes, greater individual liberty would actually be very appealing to many of them. And why do Republicans make these litmus tests?? You screw yourselves out of so many votes, instantly. And if you truly dissect your ideology… I think you’d see that you are actually supposed to be Pro-Choice and Pro-gay rights. It’s actually very un-Republican by true definition (certainly NOT modern definition) to be 100 percent prolife and against gay marriage.

If the party could make its platform about smaller government, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, reform, individual liberty (I’m sorry but that includes marriage equality and the freedom for a woman to choose)… it could take back control of the government. With my support and with a far greater youth support (b/c now you have none).

If sarah Palin could say that while she is personally against abortion ,she does not believe in over turning roe v wade. And while she may personally believe that marriage is a between a man and a woman she does believe in separation of church and state and DOES believe that atleast as far as the government is concerned, there should be civil marriage equality (churches do what they want). If she does those two things and the party gets behind her… she could be elected in 2012.

Feb 1, 2009 - 2:12 pm 55. Grover:

“Second, Steele should call in Mitt Romney or another respected business figure like Fed Ex’s Fred Smith to conduct a top-to-bottom audit of the RNC and recommend needed reforms.”

He should call them IMMEDIATELY, along with other supply-siders, to craft a serious Republican ‘bailout’ proposal that has a chance of turning our faltering economy around. If the GOP can’t do this, and in record time, America is doomed as a Republic, our Constitution will be hijacked along with our freedom, and Socialism/Communism will win.

Feb 1, 2009 - 2:26 pm 56. Grover:

Right on, Jennifer Rubin. Yours is a blueprint for success. Darkness hates the light of TRUTH.

Feb 1, 2009 - 2:28 pm 57. Bilgeman:

Michael Steele is a very good choice for RNC Chairman.

He now has the task of forming the “Shadow Government”, giving the nod to the Republicans who will be out front as alternatives to His Alleged Hawaiianess.

It will be an interesting few months to see what lessons the GOP internalizes from it’s defeat in 08.

I’d observe that McCain’s pandering to the Left not only failed to steal votes from the Democatric column, but it also alienated the GOP base.

So the question before Steele and the GOP is:

“Do we try to appeal to the center,(read: Leftwards), again, only HARDER?
Or do we get back,(read: Rightwards), to the core principles that keep our base engaged and voting?”

I seem to recall, for all the present notions being advanced about the GOP being naught now but a regional Southern Caucasian party, that there was once a species of politician called a “Dixiecrat”, and because their seats were solid and dependable, they swung a much bigger “dick” than otherwise would be expected because:

1) They had seniority,(say “Howdy” to Senator Byrd).

and:

2) They were the key faction in many a legislative bargaining session.

Feb 1, 2009 - 2:28 pm 58. MatthewK:

I would add one more: Make it clear that Steele doesn’t intend to move the party to the left. Several, including myself, have concerns over his questionable position on Roe v. Wade, his support for racist affirmative action policies, and his opposition to the Death Penalty.

He needs to make it clear that he doesn’t intend to change anything about the GOP position on any of those issues during his tenure.

Feb 1, 2009 - 2:41 pm 59. Valerie:

That last suggestion is the most important: regular communication on the issues of the day, offering better alternatives and ideas than the Dems have put up. We all win that way.

Feb 1, 2009 - 2:59 pm 60. 24AheadDotCom:

Jennifer Rubin says: “Steele needs to go into ethnic neighborhoods, find community leaders committed to conservative causes, and help pave the way for them to rise from local and state offices to the national stage. At the 2012 Republican National Convention, Americans shouldn’t see a homogeneous sea of all white faces.”

And, as we can see, Jennifer Rubin is part of why the GOP keeps losing. Rubin is, whether she knows it or not, pushing a quota system. Let the Dems push Gramscian policies, something they’re especially good at. The GOP should push the most talented people, whether white or non-white.

P.S. I wish I’d looked into his positions before, because Steele is no better than McCain in one very important area.

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:04 pm 61. Jeff Perren:

“why do Republicans make these litmus tests”

Why do you?

That’s not a personal attack; I’m genuinely curious. Personally, I couldn’t care less how many abortions a woman has or what homosexuals choose to do with their lives, but I’m surprised that you should consider these two issues all-important.

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:05 pm 62. Delia:

Funny how nobody mentions the, “So help me GOD” in the oath of office for president.

Forget abortion, lets start purposely ’snippin’ men that don’t pay child-support and keep dipping their little diddles in the pond 0′ life. I’m curious how many libs would be for that? I mean…really.

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:13 pm 63. BDev:

Sambo Hux,

I know you were speaking to Delia but I hope you don’t mind if I respond. Whether you care or not….Quick disclosure: I am black. I most certainly would have rather had Sarah Palin as our president than Obama. This is not a socialist country and Obama is a socialist President with socialistic ambitions. If Sarah only had 1 day in office as governor of Alaska, that’s more experience than Obama. I don’t understand why you lefties don’t get that. Charisma doesn’t equal experience and it never will. Jim Jones was charismatic…so was Hitler. Obama will go down in history as the least accomplished person in history elected to the highest office in the world: that is nothing to be proud of. Maybe next election, you dems can put up Madonna and Steven King so you can continue this “Obamamania”.

It is utterly ridiculous of you to question the viability of someone who has actually accomplished something. You know what’s amazing? Palin did it without attending a racist church. She did it without hanging out with people that hate America. She actually worked to get to where she is. Can we say that about your Messiah?

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:21 pm 64. shrubnose:

Anyone who wants to get an idea of how tough a job Mr Steele has ahead of him should go the Gallup Poll website and check out their report on party orientation.In this article Ms Rubin has 7 ideas for Mr Steele (why not 8 or 9 ?).Let’s see…. #1 – Steele/Kaine debates: Why would Kaine want to do this ? #2 – Call in Romney to turn RNC around: This is Mr Steele’s job, if he can’t do it, he should get out . #3 – Call in Newt Gingrich and have him find next 10 great conservative ideas: I think Mr Gingrich is pretty busy trying to figure out who he wants to be married to next. Plus, if you check your dictionary you will find that conservatives by definition are totally opposed to new ideas ! Only liberals like new ideas . #4 – Highlight achievements of Republican governors: Great idea, let’s start with Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. #5 – More of #3, only this time Steele does it: Again, conservatives by definition, are opposed to new ideas. #6 – Bring in the minorities: Lots of luck on this one, most people will not support those who hate, fear and despise them . #7 Better communication: Great idea! Let’s put Sarah Palin in charge of this. Or, maybe whatshisname – Chip Saltsman? Yeah, that should work. My read on all this – In 20 years the GOP will barely exist. MAY survive in a few states that are close to 100% WASP. I hope I am wrong. I do not want to live in a one party country, even if it’s my party in control. But, that is what I expect to happen . This is Mr Bush’s legacy. The GOP can thank him for this .

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:30 pm 65. former republican:

Steele is a horrible choice for republicans. lets look at his record. he won as LT. Gov. of Maryland cause the governor running was mired in scandal, in a republican year 2002, and barely won at that.

so he decides to run in 2006 cause they know they aren’t gonna be re-elected vs. a real dem opponent and he gets 25% of the black vote in Maryland and still manages to lose by double digits.

the guy is a loser. and he gets rewarded with control of the RNC? this makes little sense to me. since when does losing a statewide race by double digits entitle you to run the RNC? Tim Kaine meanwhile is a very popular governor of Virginia and won his governor race.

also Steele is a former democrat who grew up in a dem family. where is the loyalty? the only reason conservatives are in love with him is because they see him on hannity every other day which he takes the usualy hannity/rush neo-con positions on everything.

this is a BAD PICK anyway you slice it and i think republicans will be looking for a replacement in 2 years.

republicans should pick someone who is a winner and who fits their mold. how do you pick a black person when your party got just 4% of the black vote? and the party is made up of majority middle aged white males? he wont get much backing after all is said and done.. people will act like they are in love with him but its all a charade. i think deep down the republican party is very upset about this choice.

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:46 pm 66. Debbieqd:

Ms. Rubin,

You may as well just join us in the Democratic Party and get it over with. Your ideas are great but, you’re asking the GOP to change its DNA, the leopard to change its spots, the psychotic to change its personality. You know very well those things are not within the realm of reality.

Seriously read the posts here written by your conservative cronies. Beyond the hope you have given them, do you hear the anger, the hatred, the fundamentalism, the desperate hanging on to false and failed ideology?

And even IF the Republicans could re-invent themselves, these people writing here wouldn’t follow. They are stuck in a time warp and will never move. Even you, Ms. Rubin, and you’re good, couldn’t have a serious conversation with them. They don’t listen. They already KNOW everything.

As for Michael Steele, he’s the best you had. But remember that he has continually bankrupted his personal finances, lied to voters by trying to present himself as a Democrat with Democratic support (which was not there) in order to win an election — which he lost. Your party is already bankrupt and well-known for its lies of the past eight years. But maybe Mr. Steele can help. It takes one to know one.

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:46 pm 67. cassy:

as long as republicans focus on issues like immigration, abortion, god.. and ignore issues like education, economy, and healthcare they will continue to only do well in bible belt and mormon west.

and will get slaughtered in the rust belt, northeast, and non mormon west.

Steele only ran for this job cause he was tired of going on Fox News as the ‘black guy’

he is in way over his head and if this was the best republicans have to offer they are in deep trouble in 2 years.

and in 4 years with candidates like Palin, Huckabee and Romney as the front runners its gonna be ugly going against Obama and his 800M warchest and millions of volunteers.

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:51 pm 68. Bilgeman:

#54 Tim Garret:

” And if you truly dissect your ideology… I think you’d see that you are actually supposed to be Pro-Choice and Pro-gay rights.”

If we’re going to talk about “Truth” here, then let’s have a heaping helping of it all the way around the table.

Both of the narrow interest groups that you’ve identified as your own form of “litmus test”:

(“Abortion and gay rights. At least for us young independents (I am 26). It is those two issues that instantly will put most of my peers into the democratic column.”)

Are Statist to their very core. They seek to empower the government, and you cannot empower the state unless it be at the expense of the citizenry.

If you support “Gay Rights”,(so-called), you will be supporting a VAST increase of the Federal bureaucracy modelled consciously along the lines of Affirmative Action and suchlike.

Okay…so what? I hear you replying…well, once you create jobs programs for civil servants, then the government has a vested interest in never making the “problem” go away, see? In fact, I could argue that the rise to prominence of these issues on the national stage has as much to do with bureaucrats and their lawyer allies looking to strike another rich vein of identified “-ism” to mine.

Now, to specifics of truth.

Abortion. Don’t be taken in by the characterization of GOP or Conservatives as being this monolithic “Borg”, of identically lockstep position seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Nothing could be further from the Truth.

Fact of the matter is that I reckon most folks would rather abortion be, as Clinton put it: “Safe, Legal…and Rare”.
I don’t want to see abortion criminalized, and being realistic, there’s no way it could be.
But if you’re over 21, I don’t want to subsidize it.

And THAT’s what the Leftist thrust concerning abortion is REALLY about…little more than a public subsidy to abortionists and the host of counsellors and co-ordinators and other parasites in symbiosis with them.

Gays and Gay Marriage. As much as they’d deny it, Gays aren’t looking for a state marriage license to validate their relationships, but rather as a cynical maneuver towards societal affirmation of their sexual preference/orientation,(scientifically, the jury’s still out on “born” or “learned”).

And the goal of getting this affirmation, the “Stamp of Approval” on their lifestyle is to allow them to get into the schools openly and gain access to the children.
Because if gayness is a “learned” behavior more than a hereditary one, then Gays would be extinct…unless they can recruit new bed partners.
Where better for them to do this than in the schools, among impressionable and vulnerable children?

And lastly, yet another nugget of truth:

” Does it shift to the center and follow the likes of Moderate Republicans like John McCain?”

Well, the GOP didn’t get enough of your votes to overcome the number of votes that was lost from the base.

What do you think the answer is going to be?

Feb 1, 2009 - 3:55 pm 69. Spartakist Revolt:

@ #54 -

you wrote: “If the party could make its platform about smaller government, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, reform, individual liberty (I’m sorry but that includes marriage equality and the freedom for a woman to choose)… it could take back control of the government. With my support and with a far greater youth support (b/c now you have none).”

I believe that you’re absolutely correct and moves by the GOP to abandon the right to life cause and opposition to gay marriage would most likely bring them back to complete power within three election cycles. Unfortunately, these two divisive issues are central planks to the GOP platform. To abandon these core values would be basically abolishing the GOP as we know it. Sure, it would work – but then you’d have a lot of republican voters that no longer would know what they support. Sorry to say, but these approaches will not be taken, and the GOP is doomed to further decline as a regional party and permanent minority party at the national level. As you said, the young won’t even give a second glance to the republican cause. The demographics are not favorable to the GOP in the long-term. The future is already known, and it bears the mark of permanent democratic rule – simply due to electoral advantage in all of the states that count most.

Feb 1, 2009 - 4:03 pm 70. Still Bill:

To Jeff Perren: I couldn’t care less what you think either. You are making statements because your wonderful mother gave birth to you. If she had aborted you , you wouldn’t be able to stick your nose in the air and pontifcate . You must be French God bless the mothers of this world.

Feb 1, 2009 - 4:05 pm 71. Tim Garrett:

Jeff,

I clearly proved that I do NOT make these two issues litmus tests. You did read where I wrote that I just voted for the Republican Presidential ticket in 08, right?? That clearly means the issues are not all-important to me. But that’s me and how I vote. The reason I brought the two issues up is two fold. On the ideological front, I truly believe the typical Republican stance on abortion and gay rights is actually opposite to what a true die-hard ideological Republican’s stance would be. I know that sounds like a crazy notion…but like I said… dissect the core Republican principles and see for yourself, when you try to justify the government telling a woman what she can do with her body and you try to justify the government not letting two consentual individuals of the same sex marry (in the eyes of the government NOT god)… you’ll find that you canNOT do so with true republican principles (not modern day made up ones).

But the bigger side of the argument was practical. That is…do you republicans wish to hold elected office. Observe the demographics. The younger generations are progay and prochoice..in droves. They are not going to teach their kids bigotry so clearly… the trend will continue. So if Republicans want to be vialble in the future.. its really a no brainer. Go ahead.. keep these two issues as litmus test. Your party will become obsolete.

Now you really should take all of this from an unlikely ally.. not a foe. I am 26 year old Gay man who lives in California. I am supposed to hate you guys and I’m supposed to be a bleeding heart liberal. But I am not a socialist. So whats a boy to do?

Come on republicans.. open your eyes. End the culture wars. You will lose these two battles (abortion & gay rights). It really is only a matter of time. So concede to your TRUE republican ideals and forfeit these two battles.. so that we can win the WAR on socialism. Otherwise..

I’m afraid you’ll lose the battles and the war.

Feb 1, 2009 - 4:06 pm 72. Tim Garrett:

DaveP…

I’m afraid you really don’t get it. You want to blame the John McCains of the republican party for the 06′ and 08′ losses?? Really? B/c John McCain is a very rare republican and the only one that stood a fighting chance in this election. It hasn’t been the John McCain’s (unfortunately) who have defined the party for the last 8 years. It has been the far right. You want to focus on the fact that McCain lost.. but you’re ignoring the fact that under the circumstances.. he didn’t do so bad. That is a testament to being a moderate republican. And it’s the only way forward for your party. You even literally conceded us moderates to the democrats. How the hell do you expect to win an election when you just pushed the center to the left?? It’s nonsensical. Read my other posts if you want to know the real way forward for your party. Or become obsolete.

Feb 1, 2009 - 4:16 pm 73. suebender:

4. Reality, get a grip stupid…the civil rights act of the 60’s was made by the republicans, and opposed by the dippy democrats, they wanted minorities to have civil rights like they wanted the war in Viet Nam to end. they wanted neither, it would upset their power base. Read your history stupid and quit spouting crap.

Feb 1, 2009 - 4:54 pm 74. narciso:

Frankly I would have preferred Blackwell, he has a more solid record. I recoiled at the idea of Duncan again, what was his strategy last year?
Katon Dawson, had nothing to promote besides being the chairman in S.C, where McCain won; I’d keep that under my hat, If I were him. Saltsman might do well in talk radio, the “Magical negro” has gone way past its sale date. Steele is a fine choice,

the fact that the white supremacist con man clown David Duke crawled from under his hole is a bit of proof of that. David Duke the White
separatist makes common cause with Black separatists like Wright, and the New Black Panthers; all three are viciously antisemitic, basically Cedarford’s kind of folk. Of course Steele would upset their plans, promoting a positive economic platform. Which is important
because this stimulus is likely to stall the economy and create all sorts of social tensions.

We had the most pro Latin candidate out there, he nearly lost the nomination because of the immigration issue, and you spit in his face.
Governor Palin’s also not in the deport’em all crowd of Buchanan, Dodd, Tancredo; but that didn’t matter. Ironically the recession will like force as many back as any hardline policy.
Even among the under 40 in my subgroup, the Cuban Americans there was a small turn toward the policies, which they left the country to avoid. Those with understanding of the issues were more sensible, and voted the right way.

I really don’t think the moderate platform, harkening back to the days of Nixon and Ford, are the way back. Wage and price controls, OSHA, affirmative action, the EPA, did that buy any good will. No they voted for Carter, who gave us a tiny taste of Weimar and nearly trashed the military. Clinton was a little better on this score, but he left a great deal on’unexploded ordinance’ for the next president to deal with. The way forward is with Palin and Jindal maybe Sanford, pragmatic governors with
a center right reformist orientation.

Feb 1, 2009 - 5:40 pm 75. Marc Malone:

#54 Tim Garrett – I understand your position. You’re an independent. You’re pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. You’re only 26, so you don’t know the long-term effects of these things. That’s okay. I’m not trying to be condescending. I really get it. I used to be moderate on these issues. I have since learned that moderates simply lack enough info on a subject.

The end of your post is really odd… and indicative of the overall problem. Gov. Palin did decry Roe v. Wade. She also made it clear that while she would be in favor of overturning it, she opposed ideological litmus tests for Justices, so reversing it would be highly unlikely. She felt that it is properly an issue for the legislature. She is in favor of a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, but she is realist enough to know that that is also highly unlikely to ever happen. She is a pragmatic Governor.

Her stated position on gay-marriage is similar. She vetoed the likely unconstitutional legislation to block civil union insurance benefits. She interpreted her State Constitution correctly. She would favor an amendment blocking gay marriage, but gives it low priority; Too many other more pressing concerns. In Alaska, there’re a lot of kooky people, but they live and let live resultantly.

The point here is that she seems like your kind of peeps. She lives up to her own values, but isn’t really big on ramming them down your throat. She’s a pragmatic Governor, and adheres to her State’s Constitution. She governs from the center, having Dems, Indies, and Pubs in her administration. What’s not to like?

The fact that you don’t know this is demonstrative of your lack of info on the subject. If you find that this is true, would it change your mind regarding her? Also, would you consider then the idea that perhaps you don’t have enough info on the other subjects? I think it fair to consider the idea.

Feb 1, 2009 - 5:48 pm 76. Bilgeman:

#71 Tim Garret:

You SAY:

“Come on republicans.. open your eyes. End the culture wars.”

I HEAR:

“Give up! Give in! Let us, through the power of the State, tell YOU what WE’RE going to do with YOUR money and YOUR children.”

If you want an end to the Culture War, sport, you’re asking the wrong crowd.
It’s the Left that “Hopes for Change we can Believe in”.

You DO understand that, right?

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:01 pm 77. Jeff Perren:

Tim,

My error and my apologies for the sloppy inference. I should rephrase: “Why do you think this is so important to those to whom you refer?”

You answer that partly when you say that most young people are pro-gay rights/pro-choice. That’s a useful answer and I thank you for that. But it still leaves me wondering why those two particular, derivative issues would be so important as to outweigh all the others that might persuade them to vote Republican.

I agree with you that if Republicans were consistent in favoring freedom, then they would more likely be in favor of allowing gays personal choice in personal areas. I think most do, except in the area of legal marriage, a subject on which I have no worked out view.

Abortion is trickier since (as you saw by Still Bill’s comment above) emotions trump reason sometimes. For the others who are more thoughtful on the subject they honestly – but in my view mistakenly – believe that a three month only fetus is a person with rights. I can understand someone taking that position, even though I disagree with it.

To creatures like those who believe that individual freedom and its associated economic position of capitalism, is a “false and failed ideology” there is little to say. They favor dictatorship and there is no reasoning with them.

If a commitment to freedom is a “failed ideology” then I personally prefer to fail, or at least to go down protesting until the mob finally sticks me with a pitchfork, silencing my voice.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:01 pm 78. Marc Malone:

Regarding changing the party, I think it would behoove us to reach out to the Moderates of the Dem party. Lots of these people are really conservative, but support the Dems because they have always been Dems, as were their parents and grandparents before them. Some support them because they belong to unions. We need to disabuse these people of their unthinking support of the Dems.

McCain should have been able to carry PA. The folks there are heavily blue-collar. They believe in God, guns, and country. Many are anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage. They simply suffer from the long-held impression that the Pubs are the party of their enemy, Rich Corporate Businessmen. They don’t understand that those guys support the Dems. The small, independent businessmen are the ones still solidly Republican. Thing is, many supported McCain, but just enough of the rural folk voted Dem in knee-jerk fashion, when added to the big-city vote, gave the State to Obama. This was true of other States, too.

So, we need to quietly go forth and clarify just what kind of people actually belong to our Party; which people think the way we do. The Blue-Dog Dems, the Reagan Democrats, actually should be Republicans. The parties have simply changed. The Big-Business types abandoned us when they discovered the wonders of Beggar-Capitalism; when they discovered that Congressmen and Senators are now very easily bought at no risk.

The Republican Party is now the party of the tax-producers, and the Dems that of the tax-consumers. That, now, needs to be our message. Tax-producers versus tax-consumers. Honest versus thieves. The Dems have tax-producers in their ranks, but their agenda is that of the tax-consumers. That’s how we build the Party back up. We have to become the party of John Galt.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:09 pm 79. richtfan:

the GOP is the party of lincoln, and the gop freed the slaves. it was southern democrats who didn’t want any part of helping slaves become free. you guys need to go back and re-read some legitimate history books.

up until maybe the early 1960s most blacks voted Republican. Only since the government replaced the black father as the head of the family did blacks start voting Democrat.

The bottom line is that liberalism is a total failure everywhere it’s been tried. Conservative, market based economics is the only way things will get back to where they need to be.

One thing that the author is wrong about is this: Rush Limbaugh is THE voice of the party now, like it or not. He IS conservatism, and he represents what is right about the conservative movement. He is not afraid to stand up to liberal whackoism, and that’s what we’ve sorely been lacking. To try to put him in a corner or minimize him will be a colossal mistake and a failure. Don’t try it. The country club moderate wing of the party is the group that needs to be eliminated. They are the ones who pushed the McCain neo-con thing, a colossal failure.

Love the idea about using governors and their successes as an example to everyone else.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:09 pm 80. Tim Garrett:

#68 Bligeman…

Wow. You… well it’s people like you that make me think there is really no hope for the republican party. And that I had better just get used to socialism.

You claimed to offer truth yet your post lacked a shred of it.

You first argue that to be for gay rights is to seek to empower the government and to support an increase in affirmative action like programs.

Huh?

You’re grouping all gay rights’ issues into one lump policy bundle that doesn’t exist. You have to address them separately. Gay marriage. It’s an issue of equality and has nothing to do with affirmative action or greater government. A TRUE republican would either support gay marriage OR they would support having NO federal recognition of marriage, gay or straight.

Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Another equality issue. And free speech issue. But … I guess YOUR republican party doesn’t hold those as principles.

The only policies that I can imagine a remote comparison to affirmative action policies are… well i can’ think of any by name.. but i suppose you think the government will require you to hire a certain number of gays or something… and .. i’m still just left with a response of “huh?” Because .. i’m sorry it’s just ridiculous. And if those policies exist, i do not support them.

We’d be on a similar page on abortion if you agree with the way Clinton put it.. but you’re wrong that my monolothic description of how your party portrays the issue. The way Clinton put it, the way I see it, and the way you say you see it… is all Pro-Choice. The bottom line is Republicans have been claiming they are Pro-life and support overturning Roe v wade in order to get votes. Only its not getting them votes any more and they need to see that. Just say you are what you are which is pro choice and we’ll debate about the restrictions and ways to limit the number of abortions. This is what I’m arguing for.

You literally blew me away with your next statements. Literally.. in all the debates I’ve had I have not encountered arguments quite so dense.

You know nothing of the gay agenda. We do want gay marraige both for affirmation of our relationships and commitment to one another (just like heterosexuals).. AND FOR EQUAL RIGHTS. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think of me and my relationship. Or if “society affirms” it. I just want the same federal rights that you have. And if you don’t get that then you clearly have not talked to a single homosexual which in my opinion, means you really don’t have the credence to debate this. You are speaking from a place of ignorance.

“And the goal of getting this affirmation, the “Stamp of Approval” on their lifestyle is to allow them to get into the schools openly and gain access to the children.
Because if gayness is a “learned” behavior more than a hereditary one, then Gays would be extinct…unless they can recruit new bed partners.
Where better for them to do this than in the schools, among impressionable and vulnerable children?”

That whole passage…I cannot comprehend how you believe a word of that. “Get into the schools.” What are we gonna do.. creep into the schools during lunch hour and …and what.. i can’t even think of what you think we’re going to do. We’re not pedophiles?! And giving us equality doesn’t change the current laws on that?!

And then you start arguing in circles on hereditary vs learned. You seem to say its hereditary (“Because if gayness is a “learned” behavior more than a hereditary one, then Gays would be extinct”)… which if that is the case as you say, then why do we need to “recruit” new gays.

You really just need to educate yourself about homosexuals. This is clearly why your arguments lack any.. substance.

We are just like you and every other law abiding citizen. We just want the same rights that everyone else has. We don’t want to change what churches can/cannot do. I don’t need the baptists to recognize my relationship. I just want the federal government to because i pay taxes just like you and if you’re married, you’re receiving benefits that I am not.

As for children… maybe one day I’d like to have one. So that I could raise him or her to be a respectful, nondiscriminating, contributing member of society. They will have three up on you from the get go. As for any ill-natured activities with children… I’m just at a loss for what to say. I can’t logically argue an argument that isn’t based in logic.

Please educate yourself.

And I hope enough republicans can see between the two of us which is the right one to join in rebuilding the party.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:15 pm 81. wheelers_cat:

Or perhaps he can designate prominent governors as the go-to people to respond to the administration on designated areas of expertise: Sarah Palin on energy

Better rethink that Jennifer.

Palin stiffs the House Republicans
Email
Print
Share
January 31, 2009 7:34 PM

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports: When House Republicans planned their annual winter retreat, they extended an invitation to Alaska Gov. Sara Palin, hoping the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee would give a morale-building speech to the more than 130 Republican members of Congress gathered this weekend in Hot Springs, Va.

Retreat organizers tell ABC News that Palin politely declined, giving a perfectly understandable reason. According to the Congressional Institute, which hosted the conference, Palin said she simply could not make it to the retreat because pressing state business made it impossible for her to leave Alaska this weekend.

So where is Palin this weekend? She’s in Washington, D.C., attending the super-elite Alfalfa Dinner.

“She lied to us,” said a Republican at the retreat.

Asked why Palin told the Republicans she could not leave Alaska this weekend, Palin spokesman Bill McAllister offered this non-responsive answer:

“My understanding is that the governor has not scheduled any partisan events on her current trip to D.C.,” McAllister told ABC News.

The House Republicans seemed to do just fine without Palin. Their list of speakers included Republican stars Michael Steele, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich.

Asked about Palin’s no-show, House Republican leader John Boehner shrugged.

“Whatever,” Boehner said.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:16 pm 82. wheelers_cat:

When are you guyz going to acknowledge that Palin is an albatross around your necks?
She’s the national punchline that just keeps on giving.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:17 pm 83. bob:

Is Michael Steele a “magic negro” too, or are only Democrats “magic negroes”?

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:33 pm 84. yoyolite:

Still a bunch of whining losers. Repugns, always trying to dictate and preaching how people should live based on their own messed up, pseudo-morals. America finally woke up and saw them for what they truely are. REPUGNANT.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:45 pm 85. tim garrett:

Marc. Oh Marc Marc Marc.

Had you actually successfully challenged me on something your condescension may have really ticked me off. But since you didn’t, I will let it slide.

I am young but a very educated voter. You did not actually refute a single thing I said.. so I am not sure what brings you to the conclusion that I am not informed.

In fact, since you know my stance on these issues, you could have inferred that I DID know the pragmatic things you mentioned since I managed to vote for the republican ticket in this election. I know that roe vs wade won’t be overturned. I know that gay marriage will be legal one day. But it doesn’t mean that the principles behind her claiming to support a constitutional amendment (whether or not its passable) to ban gay marriage and abortion didn’t/don’t bother me. They do.

But aside from all of that… the point I was making that you did not address at all.. was that these issues being republican litmus tests drive my generation from considering your party. I did not want to vote socialist so I allowed these pragmatic truths you mentioned to justify my vote for mccain. but there weren’t enough of me. And there probably won’t be. So since we agree on these pragmatic truths (though clearly we disagree on the principles).. why don’t you guys ditch the litmus test. They will make your party obsolete. In fact.. they kind of already are.

If you choose to respond..rather than simply claim I am without information.. perhaps you would like to a) provide all of this information that directly dispels anything I have said b) address the original arguments I made ex: true republicanism would be progay prochoice and c)PLEASE enlighten me on the longterm effects of being for gay rights and equality… and for being proindividual liberty and prochoice. That really was the only argument in your post.. yet you offered NO substance.

Anxiously awaiting your response. Or a response from anyone that actually addresses my real arguments.

tg

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:55 pm 86. sambo hux:

Bdev:

You’re right, Jim Jones was charismatic…so was Hitler . . . and Reagan and Gingrich . . . fascists one and all. And I don’t believe you’re black. I really don’t. I think you’re lying. You lack the ring of truth.

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:25 pm 87. CapitalistForChange:

Here’s my Six Step commendation for Jennifer: 1. Let’s drop the “debates with Kaine”. No one will watch. 2. DON’T ask Mitt Romney for ANYTHING. He LOST. So did Newt. Let’s stop resurrecting La-Uuzers! 3. Beware of “highlighting GOP Governors”. Shall we “highlight” Govs Crist, Pawlenty and Palin for bucking the House Republicans by saying “YES” to the current stimulus? 4. Let’s not refer to anyone as an “old bull” whom we’re afraid to identify by name. If there’s a cancer, identify it and have it removed! 5. Let’s not pretend there’s an EXISTING “minority outreach” program. Joseph Cao probably never even read the GOP Party Platform. 6. Here’s the CLINCHER. Mike Steele should go about his business without trying to “engage” the President directly. He’ll look too much like the “Obama Mini-me”. Best wishes Mr Steele. Your Party needs you. The sad part is that most of them don’t realize how MUCH they need you.

Feb 1, 2009 - 8:02 pm 88. Walt:

I am a WASP Southerner and proud of it. By liberal standards I guess that mekes me a racist. So be it. However, so many on here seem to be woefully unaware of the mindset of the average black. As someone mentioned, the Democrats think minorities are stupid. That is true but blacks don’t really care what the Dems think as long as they keep the social welfare programs rolling. That is legalized vote buying, purely and simply.

Feb 1, 2009 - 8:22 pm 89. PETE:

#3: Newt Gingrich should CHAIR a commission to come up with new ideas. I’m afraid Newt, as an individual, is too 1990s to be the sole “idea-giver” for a Republican renewal. It’s necessary to counter Obama’s socialism with ideas that, at least, seem to come from new generation Republicans.

Feb 1, 2009 - 8:24 pm 90. bb:

Delusional- all of ‘ya. As long as the GOP keeps mixing Christianity and politics, they will continue to lose. Take a civics class and pay attention tot the part about separation of church and state. Then maybe more people will listen to your fiscal ideas.

Feb 1, 2009 - 8:39 pm 91. narciso:

Fine, Tim, let them lose their liberties, problem is we lose ours as well. In retrospect, it may have been a mistake for her to endorse efforts like Prop. 8; but that doesn’t justify hanging her in effigy, which probably put that vote over
the top, the irony. Of course, how many people actually knew the truth about her record in Alaska, and how many of them voted, not nearly enough.

The culture wars have been going at least since 1962, with Engel v. Vitale, (school prayer), Griswold v. Connetticut (birth control)Roe vs. Wade (abortion), as well as affirmative action, (Furman v. Ga)the death penalty, and a myriad other fronts. They weren’t started by our side, but there has certainly been a spirited response

Feb 1, 2009 - 9:40 pm 92. Jeff Perren:

Tim,

Bravo.

Please read Shaving Leviathan

Your comments are invited.

Feb 1, 2009 - 10:13 pm 93. Paul S.:

I’m a lifelong Republican voter and I absolutely HATE the Republican party. The anti-gay / creationism / anti-abortion / Schiavo focus is crazy if the party wants to attract the 18-29 crowd. In ten years, the problem will be with 18-39 year olds. The only Republicans left will be old white people.

As for Newt, yes he is very intelligent and I agree with nearly everything he says. But once this new “brand” starts working, these clowns will drag out Lott, DeLay, the Bush’s, and Newt himself as the new leaders. It’s total insanity. As seen in his farewell speeches in Texas, President Bush has this perverted pride in being incompetent.

The Rush Limbaugh / Sean Hannity / Ann Coulter hijack of the party is distasteful because they are in the business of creating entertainment by being hated and obnoxious. If their substance is not objectionable, certainly their style is.

How can this 10 year old $12 trillion mess not be the most important thing in the world?!

Feb 1, 2009 - 10:13 pm 94. BDev:

Sambo hux,

You don’t believe I’m black because?? Oh, I know because I speak like someone that left the democrat plantation, right? Absolutely!

Both of my parents are black (dark skinned, too) so I think that makes me black, too. That highlights one of my problems: we’re all (blacks are) supposed to think alike, right? You don’t think I’m black because I don’t think like you. I am proud to be black and not thinking like you.

Feb 1, 2009 - 10:43 pm 95. BDev:

Oh and Sambo hux, since you threw Reagan in the mix….he was a successful Governor of a state. He had a proven record of accomplishment. What did Obama do? He hung around with a sociopath, a thief, and several racist lunatics who helped him get to where he is. Contrary to what you believe, Sambo, there are many blacks in this country who are not that impressed with that. We just have to keep it on the DL otherwise we’re subject to being physically attacked by one of you Obamaniacs. I’d pick Sarah Palin over “The One the world has been waiting for” any day. Get over yourself.

Feb 1, 2009 - 10:51 pm 96. jc:

I was delighted to see Michael Steele chosen as Chairman of the GOP, and I liked his rather feisty, combative tone in his initial remarks after being elected. I couldn’t help thinking of the scene from the movie “Patton”, where the general takes over command in North Africa just after the Americans had lost their first battle. In the movie, he ordered all his soldiers were neckties and helmets because they lacked basic discipline and they lacked the pride in themselves that was necessary for them to become winners. He said “a blind man coud see it.” I hope Michael Steele is our George S. Patton. Republicans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:06 pm 97. Imee:

Nobody can really tell for sure but we’ll have to see what Steele can do for the country.

Feb 2, 2009 - 12:28 am 98. shrubnose:

Re – 78. Marc Malone. “We have to become the party of John Galt”. John Galt is a figment, a character in an Ayn Rand novel. Ayn Rand in a nutshell: The world would be a better place if I owned everything and all of you worked (slaved) for me. I do not think this is a good idea. Alan Greenspan is another supporter of Ayn Rand’s ideas (that has turned out great for the economy !). Ayn Rand wasted a lot of paper and readers time. She has gone to her reward for this.

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:31 am 99. RE:

The embrace of identity group politics by the GOP will be harmful to the nation. In the race to the bottom the Dems will get us there faster, but the GOP is taking to the same destination with it’s ‘compassionate conservatism’, or whatever they’re calling it these days.

The GOP need a lot more leaders and far fewer panderers.

Feb 2, 2009 - 4:54 am 100. narciso:

Paul S, related to David S. you really show a degree of ignorance or insincerity, the abortion plank has been in place for 28 years, and now you’re concerned. As for Schiavo, do we really want to go the way of euthanasia the dutch way. On other issues, you seem not to want the imput
of the church community, without which the party is a clique of rich bankers and their suburban housewives; who do you think will deign to run the phonebanks, get out the vote. Should we jettison our right to bear arms, too, that’s not preferred in urban environments, let’s loath our military, like Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, and Reverend Wright. How many other concessions should be made. Let’s stop pressing for our own development of our own resources, but that causes environmental problems. Were you opposed to the bulk on non defense spending in the last 6-8 years, or tax cuts, nice try.

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:05 am 101. Jeff Perren:

“Ayn Rand in a nutshell: The world would be a better place if I owned everything and all of you worked (slaved) for me. I do not think this is a good idea. Alan Greenspan is another supporter of Ayn Rand’s ideas (that has turned out great for the economy !).”

Completely false, and I suspect you know this is a smear.

Rand advocated equal rights – life, liberty, and the pursuit of property – for every individual, with no one allowed to initiated force against another. She was a strong advocate of reason, individualism, and capitalism, i.e. voluntary trade in a system which protects rights equally where each person exercises his/her own judgment to persuade others of the value of what they offer. She admired and defended the U.S. Constitution and the American form of government, along with the American “sense of life” – self-reliance, can-do optimism, and fair play, i.e. justice.

She opposed any form of irrationality or collectivism and their consequent coercive suppression of individuals. Is this what you consider harmful or destructive?

Alan Greenspan abandoned her basic principles long before he took the job as Fed chairman.

Feb 2, 2009 - 7:40 am 102. shrubnose:

100. narciso: I agree with your post, Steele and the GOP (Greed Over Principles party) are total losers. They are so deep in the hole they have dug, their best bet is to keep digging and come out the other side of the planet. And they appear to be hard at work on just that ! Let’s wish them luck and loan them some shovels. May they continue to live in interesting times until they pass on and receive that which they so richly deserve (We are NOT talking dozens of virgins here !). Have a nice day .

Feb 2, 2009 - 7:55 am 103. Andrew Ian Dodge:

His selection has upset David Duke which is good.

It would be nice if he could get the Republican Party to call what Obama & his chums are doing socialism. Using their terms to define it does not help the cause one bit.

As long as the GOP keeps mixing Christianity and politics, they will continue to lose. Take a civics class and pay attention tot the part about separation of church and state

This point is true. The Republicans need to concentrate on bread & butter issues, fiscal conservatism and lower taxes. Threatening to meddle is people’s lives as much as the socialists do just from a different motivation is not something to attract voters.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:52 am 104. shrubnose:

101.Jeff Perren: You are mistaken Mr. Perren. Your problem is you do not follow Ayn Rands ideas through to their possible end result. Her ideas would,if carried through to their logical conclusion result in one person owning the entire world . The rest of us could either work for that person or starve. That would be our free choice (no violence or force there!).Any restrictions placed on the right of any one individual to totally control this planet regardless of the effect on others would go against Ayn Rands basic ideas ( now that’s individualism and capitalism – reason – I’ll leave that up to you! ). If you do not understand that, you need to go back and read a little more of what Ms Rand wrote .Your mistake is that you do not carry her ideas forward enough,you stop where you feel comfortable. you degrade her doctrine. You are NOT a good follower of Ayn Rand. You just do not understand what she has said . Maybe you could call Alan Greenspan and get him to explain Ayn Rand’s ideas. He is a really smart guy ! But his explanations might be a little hard for you to understand with the fed-speak thing. Have a nice day. Don’t stay up late waiting for the GOP to come back. As I have said, Ayn Rand wasted a lot of paper and peoples times. She is a fairly good example of the dictum ” No matter how many books you load on the back of a jackass, the jackass is still a jackass”. Get it ? If not, get with Mr GW Bush .

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:54 am 105. Cybergeezer:

If we can’t find a whitey cussing reverend in his background, he doesn’t stand much of a chance with his own race.

Feb 2, 2009 - 9:11 am 106. Jeff Perren:

shrubnose,

I won’t bother with an extended debate, since you clearly have not read Rand’s actual works in depth. I’ve read everything she’s written, several times, over a period of 30 years. I also have a degree in Philosophy from UCLA, so I have the background to evaluate her thought against others.

But enough biography. This post is intended for those few who might be misled by your distortion (and unsupported assertions) of Rand’s philosophy.

The fact is that most of her basic ideas were tried long before she espoused them, during the 19th century. During that period, which was admittedly far from perfect, U.S. and British citizens were left relatively free vastly improved their own lot, thanks to the many innovators of the period. The nightmare scenario which you paint of one person (or a few) controlling all the resources and effectively enslaving all others simply has no foundation in logic or historical fact.

Even at the height of Rockefeller’s dominance in oil, he had to continually cut costs and improve quality. Ditto Alcoa when they controlled most of the aluminum business. Ditto J.J. Hill and J.P. Morgan with transportation, Carnegie Steel, etc. etc.

But there is no point in enumerating examples for you or trying to explain logically the superiority of individual freedom and capitalism, since you clearly have no interest in facts, only smears and red herrings.

Feb 2, 2009 - 9:18 am 107. David S:

First, Steele should offer to debate DNC Chairman Tim Kaine coast-to-coast on the Democrats’ stimulus plan and the economic crisis.

He can offer, but nobody will take him up on it. First he would need to come up with his own plan to offer as an alternative, and that’s not happening either.

Second, Steele should call in Mitt Romney or another respected business figure like Fed Ex’s Fred Smith to conduct a top-to-bottom audit of the RNC and recommend needed reforms.

Certainly a good place to start. The RNC has been in need of an update for a long time now.

Third, Steele should enlist Newt Gingrich to find the next ten great conservative ideas.

Steele would be wise to expand the search for great conservative ideas beyond Newt. He’s a great spokesperson, but not the wisest counsel for great ideas.

Fourth, Steele must find a way to highlight on a regular basis the achievements of Republican governors who are among the brightest lights in the party.

This is all well and good, but there is not much to show. Republican governors haven’t really got a lot of achievements to highlight.

Fifth, Steele, better than anyone, can recognize that many of the old bulls of the Republican Party and the organizations which they populate don’t have much appeal, even within the party.

Here is where Steele can blow the doors off. There is a lot of dead wood in the GOP, and much of it has been retiring lately. Steele can help to turn this thinning of the ranks into a positive for the party if he can recruit talent to replace the old bulls. This may come in the form of reconstituting existing organizations, or starting fresh with new approaches. Probably both.

Sixth, Steele needs to recruit more people like the Vietnamese immigrant and upset winner Congressman Joseph Cao. Let’s be honest: there are too few Republican minority candidates, office holders, and party officials.

No question there are too few GOP minority candidates. Cao, however, is an anomaly. Finding more minority candidates will be a big challenge, and changing the lily-white complexion of the party is simply not going to happen overnight, or in four years. This is a generational challenge.

Steele needs to find an appropriate day-to-day communication strategy during the Obama presidency. Far too often the message coming from the RNC is nitpicky, unduly nasty, and unhelpful in furthering the policy or political objectives of the party.

I’m in 100% agreement here. The GOP has to focus on the positive that they can bring to the table. Attacking Obama may play to the base, but that base will keep shrinking if the GOP fails to offer an alternative to the Dems.

Peace.

DS

Feb 2, 2009 - 9:49 am 108. shrubnose:

Let’s get back on topic and take a look at #4 on Ms Rubin’s list,viz. : Highlight achievements of Republican governors. I really think this is a great idea. Governors are kinda like CEOs, they are in charge, they are responsible. Let’s start at the top. Let’s look at California. How is the Governator doing ? Oops. Not so good.(Arnold cut the taxes, now there is no money in the till !) If you are looking for a tax refund, or payment for work you did for the state, get ready to wait or take an IOU ! The Governators comment on this ? – I’ll be back to you,right now I have to go beg President Obama for some money, don’t tell anybody .

Feb 2, 2009 - 9:52 am 109. narciso:

No, shrubnose, I don’t hold Steele in the same view as with much of the GOP, I would have preferred Blackwell, but that was not to be. He should run again for Governor or Senator just to make Keith Olbermann’s head explode. My critique is with Tim Garrett, not with David S, he’s just a troll, pretending to be a former
Republican, or lets be charitable, an old moderate left behind sometimes around 1980. Now Darwin we had this discussion before over the Governor, she’s right politically, and right on the issues, but she’s not going to kick out all the illegals. Her personal social views are not her policy views, she thinks persuasion rather than legislation is the key. That previous interview was with the Canadian equivalent of Bob Costas, she wasn’t going to go into hard right polemics there.

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:23 am 110. David S:

@109. narciso:

I don’t pretend to be a former Republican or an old moderate. Just a rational human being.

Peace.

DS

PS – You should thank your lucky stars that Blackwell didn’t win. He is an example of what has been wrong with the GOP over the past three decades. Just a tool.

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:49 am 111. shrubnose:

106.Jeff Perren: You are mistaken, Mr Perrin. I wasted a lot of time reading Ayn Rand’s garbage. Your reply to my post is exactly what I would have expected from a true believer in Ayn Rand’s Objectivism cult. I see Ms Rand as a poseur. When she moved to the USA she tried to mold herself into a product that would sell well in the USA . And she did well with this . In life, many of us struggle to survive, so I will not condemn her too greatly for this . But I am not happy with the result that so many people took this seriously and built a cult around it . To me, one of the worst features of this system of belief is the idea that ALTRUISM is profoundly immoral. Mr Perren, I will ask you: Do you believe that ALTRUISM is profoundly immoral ? Waiting for your answer……… If you say NO, you are not in agreement with one of the basic tenets of your religion, Objectivism . If you say YES, you are out of touch with most compassionate humans . But, in any case – Have a nice day , even though you would never help me if you saw me in need of help, I on the other hand would help you ! PS Since Ayn Rand has moved on to her reward, and has a lot of free time, maybe she will find time in the afterworld to learn from Mark Twain how to say more with fewer words .

Feb 2, 2009 - 11:52 am 112. shrubnose:

107. David S. : What is the biggest problem for conservatives ? Look in the dictionary,viz., Conservative 1. Inclined to keep things as they are 2. A conservative person distrusts and opposes change and new ideas . See that bit about being opposed to new ideas ? That’s not me talking, that is straight from the dictionary ! So, to recap, what does the GOP (a conservative party, not a liberal party ) have to do to survive ? Answer = It must find new ideas and change. BUT – it can’t. See definition of conservative. I think this is what is technically known as a Catch-22 situation . Buh-bye GOP .

Feb 2, 2009 - 12:20 pm 113. narciso:

Ayn Rand’s philosophy was deeply shaped by the experience of growing up in Soviet Russia, that left a deep skepticism in her, about Government mandated or directed altruism; not private charity. To have read Rand, and missed that makes me think you haven’t read her at all. Not really my cup of tea, but we could do and probably will. Conservative is not so much the dictionary definition; will someone stop with that copout. but classical liberalism in economy
along with a respect for the traditional institutions that help build up this country; faith, family, belief in free enterprise. defense of basic constitutional enumerated rights. That’s not an easy path to follow, but that seems the best path

Feb 2, 2009 - 12:44 pm 114. Ann:

I am just going to wait; who did the background process for this man. If guilt by association applies to everyone. This took me 10 minutes on the net:

Michael Steele received the following awards:

“Foreign Aspen networks are located in Germany, France, Italy and Japan. This cross-global relationship coincidentally also represents the areas of the Trilateral Commission.”

“Let’s hope the Aspen Institute doesn’t manage to fool any of the people any time after reading this and other articles discussing the real agenda behind their PR constructed exterior. This organization is nothing more than a satellite UN using OUR money, OUR legislators, and OUR formerly US companies to facilitate OUR entry into the New World Order.”

http://www.isburg.net/essays/aspen-institute-for-humanistic-studies-exposed.htm

C. DeLores Tucker Bethane-Dubois

http://www.bethune-dubois.org/

ABOUT BDI
Founded in 1986, The Bethune-DuBois Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, was established to sustain and magnify the educational legacies of two of America’s greatest leaders…Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune and Dr. W.E.B. DuBois. Their examples and teachings, emphasized personal leadership and the importance of education and training in solving public policy problems and in advancing the status and contributions of all African Americans in American society.

The Bethune-DuBois Institute was founded by the late Dr. C. Delores Tucker, former Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The late WEB Dubois has an FBI rap 600 pages long for Marxist activities.

http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/dubois.htm

Feb 2, 2009 - 12:54 pm 115. shrubnose:

113.narciso: I have never heard of government mandated altruism in the USSR or anywhere else on this planet . If you have some info on this, please share .We are talking here about the government forcing you to be nice, kind and thoughtful towards others . Which you should do of your own free will ( Ayn Rand did not agree with this, saw this as weakness, can’t be weak ) A Conservative is what the dictionary says a conservative is. if you believe otherwise, you slould throw your dictionary in the trash bin . Ayn Rand was an immigrant who came to the USA to live. She did what she had to do to survive. She will not turn the GOP (Greed Over Principles party) around. She is too busy with her current situation . Have a nice day & God Bless America, and don’t spare the cheese . If that’s OK with Mr Perren.

Feb 2, 2009 - 1:34 pm 116. shrubnose:

114. Ann: Do you oppose advancing the status of African Americans in American society ? If so, why ?

Feb 2, 2009 - 1:43 pm 117. Ann:

116. shrubnose:

Not at the expense of a socialist America?

I am not making acccusations against Michael Steele, but I am questioning his associations with Marxists or NWO groups, and other enemy organization; such as we did bho or Hanoi Jane,Willian Ayers, John kerry.. Especially when this is something most conservative oppose. Doesn’t make any difference what hyphenated American you wish to call yourself. Why do we never hear of the great black American success and ideals for the black communities: George Carver, Booker T Washington? Tom Sowell…to name a few.

I just figured someone was going to nail me as some type of racist because I have called a black man into question about his connections.

Did you bother to check out the links?

In any event, what I oppose,question, or believe, hasn’t ever done anything to stop advancements of black Americans.

I think I have an American right to demand explanations or renouncements from any leader about group they have received awards from as being a part of the CPUSA or NWO Trilateral Commission or any other organizations that threaten America’s sovereignty.

Feb 2, 2009 - 2:15 pm 118. Jeff Perren:

shrubnose,

This will be my last reply to you because I have little time for fools or liars.

I don’t know for sure whether your assertions represent wholesale ignorance or lies, but the effect is the same: to distort Rand’s views (and in the bargain charge with the usual slander anyone who respects them as a ‘cultist’ i.e, a blind faithful follower who does not base their advocacy on fact and logic).

I bother to make this reply only because your distortion (or, being ‘altruistic’, misunderstanding) of her views in one area are common and I don’t want the casual observer to be left with a false impression.

Rand went out of her way to make it clear that she was not opposed to charity, compassion, generosity, and the like, only to regarding them as the be all and end all of human relations and particularly to imposing them by force. (As an 800-lb gorilla in the room that you refrain from mentioning, consider any government welfare program.)

But, since she actually understood and cared about the meaning of words, and knew their historical source, she was careful when using the term “altruism.”

It’s true that in popular parlance, this word often means the equivalent of “benvolence” or “charity.” She used it in the sense that its originator, August Comte, did to mean “self-sacrificial help to another.”

She was opposed – as am I – to genuine self-sacrifice, not the sort that the popular woozy meaning of that term entails (i.e. simply paying a price for what one wants), but the actual and intentional surrender of a higher value for a lower one.

If you had actually studied much Rand you would know all this. If you have studied her, then you are deliberately distorting her views in order to create a straw-man that can easily be knocked down.

But if advocacy of Objectivism bothers you so much, I’ll settle for Jefferson and Madison, or Locke and Mises, or even Thomas Sowell. There is good reason to believe you would be equally opposed to any of these, at they all amount to a view of social organization very much at odds with what yours can reasonably be presumed to be.

In any case, I’m done with you.

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:13 pm 119. shrubnose:

!17.Ann. Ann, I will ask you one more time. This is a very simple question. Do you or do you not support advancing the status of African Americans in American society. Your choice – yes or no. Waiting to hear from you on this .

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:52 pm 120. narciso:

Altruism, sharing the wealth, sound familiar; god is everyone a troll today, government mandated distribution of income . The goal of Lenin, and Castro, and Che, and Mao, & Ortega and Chavez. Sorry,shrubnose but you seem uncommonly dense, today. I expect it from Paul S and Dave S, but I don’t expect it from putatively our side. No conservatism is not what the dictionary definition is, neither s liberalism, frankly they’re polar opposites in practice, Thanks Jeff for focusing the point more solidly.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:01 pm 121. Ann:

When you answer my post. How do you feel about someone who has accepted awards from the groups I mentioned?

Your question once again is irrevelent to the information I posted.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:07 pm 122. Bilgeman:

#80 Tim Garret.

Two replies to your #80 posting, neither of which got past the moderator.

Wonder why that is?

Moderator: feel free to delete any offending verbiage and submit them.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:19 pm 123. RE:

Obama is assembling the most corrupt cabinet we’ve ever seen, and the GOP is rubberstamping it in full knowledge of the tax evasion, shady dealings , and travesties of justice.

The GOP now seems more interested in becoming part of a separate and distinct emerging political class than in championing America’s founding principles. I’ve lost confidence in the GOP. They have simply lost the plot.

Feb 3, 2009 - 5:06 am 124. Beagle8u:

Electing Michael Steele proves that the leadership of the Republican party has lost it’s mind!

Support affirmative action? That is nothing but racism!

He supports Roe v Wade.

His views on the 2nd Amendment border on anti-gun, and are just plain stupid.

Now he wants to accept the gay agenda.

His stand on those issues should pretty much get rid of all the broken glass Republican voters, and leave the party with nothing but liberal NE Rocky-Feller morons that can’t get elected dog catcher!

The Republican party is now dead.

Feb 3, 2009 - 5:59 am 125. Cybergeezer:

I hope Mr. Steele does have some mystical powers; Hocus-pocus is the only thing the MSM pays homage to, these days.
I’m sticking another pin in my Obama doll today.

Feb 3, 2009 - 6:13 am 126. deguello:

You can’t revive a corpse. Third party anyone?

Feb 3, 2009 - 2:54 pm 127. Bilgeman:

One last try…third time’s a charm.

#80 Tim Garret:

“You… well it’s people like you that make me think there is really no hope for the republican party. And that I had better just get used to socialism.”

What bunk you spout. Seriously, fella. The GOP should essentially utterly re-brand itself, becoming Liberals on the issues of Abortion-Subsidies and Gay Rights,(so-called), or resign itself to Socialism?

Did you read this before you hit the “submit” button, or were you too upset by the rest of my post?

“You first argue that to be for gay rights is to seek to empower the government and to support an increase in affirmative action like programs.

Huh?”

We’ve seen it before, buck-o. The African American Civil Rights movement, when it started, was all about “Equality”…just being treated equally as anyone else is, because it was an act of God that they were born with more melanin than others.
And they were right.

But somewhere along the way, that appeal for Equality of Opportunity was betrayed by demands for Equality of Outcome…and THAT’S where the Affirmative Action and the Racial Quota systems came in, which is the “Rice Bowl” for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats and lawyers.
And all of them have an economic vested interest in ensuring that the problem remains constant…even if the problem isn’t a problem at all anymore, or not so much of a problem to justify the legions of parasites who make a living off of advocating “the cure”.

You cannot guarantee that Gay Rights, (so-called), will not similarly morph into something just as destructive and just as divisive, and bearing in mind that those “Equality Parasites” are always on the lookout for new opportunities to make a buck, I’d say chances are way better than even that that’s exactly what would happen.

” The way Clinton put it, the way I see it, and the way you say you see it… is all Pro-Choice.”

No, it’s not. Here again you conveniently overlook the “mission creep” of issues. What the Supreme Court found in Roe V. Wade was a Right to Privacy…you have a right to do with your body as you wish, but only within your personal means.
But somehow that became a “Right to Have an Abortion as a Primary Means of Birth Control and the Taxpayers have to Subsize It”…EVEN if that medical procedure is to be performed on a minor. They will do it without parental consent or even notification.

You know of any other medical procedure that that would apply to?
A tattooist would risk a fat lawsuit and a license revocation for inking “Mom” on a 16 year old’s arm…but an abortionist can put a 14 year old girl in the stirrups and make a payday from Uncle Sam by Hoovering out her unborn baby?
Dude…Puh-leeze!

“You literally blew me away with your next statements. Literally.. in all the debates I’ve had I have not encountered arguments quite so dense.”

Maybe you’ve never met anyone who articulated it as bluntly as I have.

” “Get into the schools.” What are we gonna do.. creep into the schools during lunch hour and …and what.. i can’t even think of what you think we’re going to do.”

You “creep” in now, chum, but if you get your way, you won’t HAVE to “creep” in at all. You’ll walk in the front door as faculty…gym teachers, sex ed teachers, guidance counsellors, Scoutmasters and the like.

As far as what you’re going to do, we already know that. The game was given away a few years ago in the New York City area school system. In a heavily Catholic school district, the administration caved to the Gay Lobby and distributed books,(aimed at 2nd and 3rd graders, IIRC):

“Heather Has Two Mommies”
“Dad’s Special Friend, Bruce”, (or somesuch).

at elementary school-aged kids…

It follows a strategy, if you can think honestly about it…penetrate their minds when they’re little, and then you can penetrate the rest of them later on.

“We’re not pedophiles?!”

Certainly not all of you…but enough of you ARE.

You familair at all with the pedophilia scandals that have bankrupted Catholic dioceses across the nation?
In almost every single case, it has been homosexual pedophilia that has been the crime.
Did you conveniently overlook that historical fact also?

“You really just need to educate yourself about homosexuals. This is clearly why your arguments lack any.. substance.”

I’m sure it’s comforting for you to think that.

“You know nothing of the gay agenda.”

You sound like you’ve almost got yourself convinced…

“…you clearly have not talked to a single homosexual which in my opinion, means you really don’t have the credence to debate this. You are speaking from a place of ignorance.”

Ahhh, but that’s where you’re wrong. I’ve spoken to scads of them. Most of them have been distressingly “normal”, (except for the Gay Thing), but here’s what you yourself were ignorant of while you were so hotly accusing ME of ignorance:

The summer I was fifteen years old, I worked as a gas jockey at a pretty busy intersection in town.
Got to meet a lot of the public in passing.

You wanna guess how many calls I got at the station from anonymous men soliciting me for the purposes of casual sex?

At least a dozen, and this just over one summer.

Funny, that…ALWAYS men, NEVER a woman.

Don’t you think for one minute that I’m not aware of what your Gay buddies are up to with their political agitation.
You think that I or anyone else, are obligated in any way to believe in the lies you choose to believe in?
Go walk with the shepherd, little lamb…

“And I hope enough republicans can see between the two of us which is the right one to join in rebuilding the party.”

Well, sport, let’s just examine some more facts and see what we come up with.

Gays in California…in CALIFORNIA…couldn’t keep Prop 8 from passing.

To put it bluntly, you done “shot yer wad”.

And the vituperative recriminations against the Church of LDS, and anyone else EXCEPT the Black folks who were THE instrumental constituency in voting Obama IN and y’all OUT, isn’t making you any friends or allies on the national scene.

You are beginning to sound fiscally conservative, prolly because you now have to pay taxes…and that sucks, (especially in Cali), so why should anyone change anything about the platform when your generation is bound to come around anyway, simply on the fiscal front.

So you’re a young adult Gay Californian who doesn’t care for high taxes, and you’re telling the Republican Party what it should do to get your vote…maybe.

“Please educate yourself.”

Please get over YOURSELF.

I hate to rain on your parade, laddie, but you aren’t NEARLY as sought-after as you’d like to think.

Feb 3, 2009 - 3:33 pm 128. tim garrett:

Moderator: please post this one, not the first.

Bligeman

Well I’m glad you were finally able to water down your hate speech enough to get past the moderators. For some of your responses, you simply didn’t understand my argument. But by and large, you are just so overcome with ignorance and hate that you will never understand. And it truly is sad if YOU are what the republican party has become (I hold out hope that isn’t completely so). Because then no matter what me or anybody else in the center tries to say or do to reach out to the republican party to help them evolve… it truly will just become extinct.

You first reponded to my statement:

“You… well it’s people like you that make me think there is really no hope for the republican party. And that I had better just get used to socialism.”

By saying:

“What bunk you spout. Seriously, fella. The GOP should essentially utterly re-brand itself, becoming Liberals on the issues of Abortion-Subsidies and Gay Rights,(so-called), or resign itself to Socialism?”

Yeah this is where that problem of you being dense comes into play. I MEANT that if the Republican party does not reform itself and get on board with Equality and Gay Rights and for it to be OK to be pro-choice – then I (not the party) but I, me, well and basically everyone else in America… had better get used to the democrats and socialism because REPUBLICANS WON’T GET ELECTED. I will never support or suggest socialism, for the republican party or anyone. But it is where we are headed if you and your party don’t get it together on these issues.

Then we go on to Affirmative Action. Also about the point you start sounding like Hitler. Let me get this straight. We don’t give gays equality because there’s an off chance it may spiral into some unstoppable Affirmative Action movement solely based on an economic agenda.

blink blink blink (is anyone else seeing this?)

You even justify the statement by attacking the African American Civil Rights movement. Sooooooooooo basically we should have just kept the African Americans in slavery. So we would have never had to incurred the policy debates over Affirmative Action?! Are you for real??

You also ignored my statement (conveniently) that you really can’t just lump the gay rights debate into one policy bundle (b/c apparently you think it only has to do with an economic agenda).

You even used the phrase “equality parasite.”

Listen buddy.. .equality exists. It’s not just some pawn. There is certainly nothing so special about you based on your color, your gender, your sexual orientation, and CERTAINLY not your intellectual proclivity that should allow you certain rights others do not have. I pay the same taxes as you. You refused to address gay rights issue by issue. But I am going to atleast go back to the issue if gay marriage. If I get married to the man I love it doesn’t effect you or your pathetic life in any way, shape, or form.

sigh

Now onto abortion.
You basically go on this rant about parental consent and yada yada… the point I was making (that you ignored) is that we can debate all of that. The restrictions…the availability… all of it. But if you are not wanting to overturn Roe vs Wade (as you said you werent) then you .. .are .. pro .. .choice. It doesn’t mean you are pro ABSOLUTE choice. Like do whatever the hell you want choice have abortions out of the back of a pickup choice. But you are not for a complete ban on abortion. So stop making it a litmus test for a republican to run for office to have to say they are “prolife.” Because they aren’t. And they’re losing votes by saying so. And if they are… then they really shouldn’t be elected. And they won’t be.

You then say something about me never hearing anyone argue as blunty as you have. No bud, I haven’t heard anybody argue from such deep and set ignorance.

Back to the gays (you seem to have a particular problem with them. In my experience… being overly concerned with the issue usually is a sign of insecurity. But we’ll stick to the policy debate).

You say you worry that we’ll (the gays) will become gym teachers and guidance counselors and etc (as a way to “get to the kids.”)

News flash

We already are your teachers. We already are guidance counselors. And if you think there is some way to stop that.. then you REALLY are not a TRUE republican and have no idea what this country is founded on.

You talk about books. Free speech buddy. But as with all books in schools… there are methods for determining whats appropriate based on state rules. Oh..how crazy is that.. another republican idea.

You really are ignoring reality though if you think the GAY AGENDA really has any invested interest in harming children. To the contrary we are fighting to be able to adopt children without homes and raise them properly. People like you are fighting that. Because you just refuse to understand that we are normal.

Then you talk about pedophilia and argue that while not all pedophiles are homosexuals .. enough of us are, and that most pedophilic crimes are committed by homosexuals. You really need to check your statistics.. .but regardless… pedophilia is a crime. The fact that some (really these numbers are so subjective) are done by heterosexuals… does that mean you guys shouldn’t be able to get married either???

Everything you argue is so directly opposite of the republican principle of individual liberty. Which was the core argument in my initial post… but you REFUSE to see that.

Then you go off on some tangent about being hit on in (some fantasy) when you were 15.

You do understand we were talking policies, right? Please explain to me the relevance of this and how you could tie it into laws or principles? B/c you will find yourself on a terrible slippery slope and any legal scholar would laugh their ass off at you. (as I’m sure anybody reading these posts already is).

Then you brought up our failure in CA to keep Prop 8 from passing.

Yes it was a failure and unfortunately too many of us were complacent. But that is because we know the facts… That the margin of people opposing gay marriage is dwindling (margin down to 4% in the voting booth) and that my demographic will become an even larger voting block in the coming years.

So while we lost this time, the FACTS should really have you people stressing out. I am pissed.. but I am also reassured. I am on the winning side of history.

You then claim my generation will come around on the fiscal front. I am not an independent just for fiscal reason. But I can’t speak for my whole generation. But what I can do is look at the statistics and know that you are living in some dream world if you think your party as it is will ever become a trend again. As you are … you are finished. I personally believe there is much more to your party than these two issues. But the fact that you think they are so core to your platform that they are forever ingrained… well let’s just say that if you are right…. your party is extinct.

I never got your age. But I’ll just say I hope you aren’t too old. because I’d really like for you to be around to learn that so much of what you believe is utter BS.

Feb 3, 2009 - 9:49 pm 129. David S:

@ 127. Bilgeman:

I now see that your own sexual insecurity is your reason for hating gays. Get over it. Maybe you are a closet case yourself, but don’t hate others because of your own shortcomings.

Republicans have no policy leg to stand on. Fiscal responsibility is a joke after Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

The GOP has set itself up as the enemy of personal privacy, the enemy of government, and the enemy of freedom.

What do you support, aside from guns, religion, tax cuts and war?

Peace.

DS

Feb 4, 2009 - 12:00 pm 130. Pat J:

I guess Bilgeman didn’t get the memo how Steele stated as recently as on Fox News Sunday how the GOP should reach out to gay and pro-choice voters.

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:33 am 131. Bilgeman:

#128 Tim Garret:

“Yeah this is where that problem of you being dense comes into play. I MEANT that if the Republican party does not reform itself and get on board with Equality and Gay Rights and for it to be OK to be pro-choice – then I (not the party) but I, me, well and basically everyone else in America… had better get used to the democrats and socialism because REPUBLICANS WON’T GET ELECTED.”

Then so be it.

“Because then no matter what me or anybody else in the center tries to say or do to reach out to the republican party to help them evolve… it truly will just become extinct.”

Another howler from you…now it’s not just the dire threat of Socialism, but Extinction as well, is that it?

You’re KILLIN’ me here!

“But by and large, you are just so overcome with ignorance and hate that you will never understand.”

Hey, ace…who gave YOU the charter to be the impartial arbiter of what is “Hate” and “Ignorance” anyway?
How ,ummmm, convenient for you that anything or anyone that disagrees with your personal notions of “Reform” and “Equality” can be so handily labeled with such moralistic words.

You know what you sound like? A prig…some kind of “Puritan” from an alternate universe where what passes for traditional values are topsy-turvy from the one that we inhabit.
Too bad that that didn’t even wash out there on “Planet California”.

“Then we go on to Affirmative Action. Also about the point you start sounding like Hitler. Let me get this straight. We don’t give gays equality because there’s an off chance it may spiral into some unstoppable Affirmative Action movement solely based on an economic agenda.”

I could invoke Godwin’s Law here, but for the sake of argument, do you really think that your incessant bleating about “Equality”,(as you subjectively define it), won’t morph into a litigational omnibus to “address past injustice”?
It’s all about the money/power, dummy…it always has been and it always will be.

“You even justify the statement by attacking the African American Civil Rights movement.”

Whose post did YOU read? It certainly wasn’t mine.
Do try, although I know it’s mighty difficult, to confine yourself to arguing against what I actually said, not what you might WISH I had said…m’kay?

“Sooooooooooo basically we should have just kept the African Americans in slavery.”

That’s YOUR characterization, not mine. I would observe, however, that all too many African-Americans, (as well as other “-Americans”, been to an Indian reservation, lately?), are kept in conditions by our government “welfare programs” that would shame most self-respecting slaveowners.

You might think that that’s an absurd statement, but I’d ask you to consider,(if that’s at all possible), that a slave represented a rather substantial personal financial investment to his or her owner, whose labor was a valuable commodity.

A latter-day “slave” , living in a housing project, or reservation, and eating off the government dole is only a valuable commodity to the people whose paychecks are dependent on keeping him or her in that state of economic bondage.

“You even used the phrase “equality parasite.””

And you either missed the meaning entirely, or refuse to see it.
(Yet you call ME “dense”.)

“If I get married to the man I love it doesn’t effect you or your pathetic life in any way, shape, or form.”

Ahhh…once again, you are setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of the issue, aren’t you?
What was that blather you were yammering about “Equality” and “Slavery”, again?
I guess those only apply to people who are your friends and allies, huh?

And you think I’d even WANT to make common cause with the likes of you?
You’re not looking for compromise, sport. You’re looking to be dictator.
You’re not looking for “outreach”, you’re demanding capitulation.
Frankly…piss off.

“So while we lost this time, the FACTS should really have you people stressing out. I am pissed.. but I am also reassured. I am on the winning side of history.”

Keep telling yourself that, hotshot.

The FACTS are that you didn’t have the numbers to get your way in the gayest state in the entire Union. And numbers,(at least in the democratic political arena), are what it’s all about…shot yer wad.

“Back to the gays (you seem to have a particular problem with them. In my experience… being overly concerned with the issue usually is a sign of insecurity. But we’ll stick to the policy debate).”

I knew that THAT one would get dropped in the stewpot.
I’d be more worried over sexual insecurity if I was wearing YOUR slippers, my friend. Because it seems that gender preference conversion is largely a “one-way street”.

Or hadn’t you noticed?

If a Straight turns Gay, it’s cause, (in your community), for a celebration. But if a Gay turns Straight…well…I’ve never heard such oppobrium as from such “respectful”,”tolerant” and “non-judgmental” folks as the Gay community.

No different than a cult, when you think about it…
So it appears that you’re the one who is trapped in your professed preference/orientation.
And please accept my condolences on that.

“You really are ignoring reality though if you think the GAY AGENDA really has any invested interest in harming children.”

How YOU define “harm” is really what is at issue here. Your homosexual “cult programming” has given you a few gigantic blind spots.
One of them results in your refusal to see that proselytizing the Gay lifestyle to children is indeed harmful to them.
Another is the hypocritical absurdity of how the Gay community on one hand rejects society’s mores, while then turning around and whining endlessly about how society should accept the Gay community by extending the benefits of one our most cherished institutions to it.

Really, it goes back to that outreach/capitulation dichotomy I was talking about earlier.
Apparently tolerance is not acceptable to you, nothing short of affirmation and celebration of your lifestyle will do.

How’s it feel to be an extremist zealot?
Cult membership will do that to ya, chappie:

“Only WE know the way! Only WE are fit to judge! IGNORE the unbelievers! SILENCE the heretics! OSTRACIZE the apostates!”.

That’s YOUR world, and you’re quite welcome to it. But don’t take offense if I put up crowd barriers and “caution” signs around it. It ain’t really to keep you “in”, it’s to warn passersby to stay “out”.

“You talk about books. Free speech buddy.”

I’ll ask for your “Free Speech” endorsement on the dust jacket just as soon as I finish “The Protocols of The Elders of San Francisco”…a picture book for 3rd-graders explaining the worldwide Gay conspiracy to recruit them into the Sodomy Cult.

Yeah… I figured you’d change your tune.

“But as with all books in schools… there are methods for determining whats appropriate based on state rules.”

Suits me fine…the GOP has the numbers to stop your hateful recruitment effort at the schoolhouse door.

“We already are your teachers. We already are guidance counselors. And if you think there is some way to stop that.. then you REALLY are not a TRUE republican and have no idea what this country is founded on.”

Oh, I’m well aware that Gays are already teachers…my wife,(who is a woman), works in a high school, and believe it or not, we count a few of these Gay teachers as friends.
The point, youngster, is that their sexual preference/orientation has no place in the classroom.
But that concept apparently will not do for your crowd. What you claim to be your personal and private affair somehow is always thrown up in our face.
Once again, y’all want to have it both ways,(as it were)…and yet,(judging by those FACTS you’re struggling so mightily hard to spin into a positive), will have neither.

“Then you go off on some tangent about being hit on in (some fantasy) when you were 15.”

It wasn’t a fantasy. It happenned. It wasn’t a big deal to me at the time, since I am and was secure in which way I’m wired, but it is a fact that I’ve never forgotten.

And I’d wager that any readers we might have could come up with similar tales of attempetd homosexual pedophilia upon them from their own lives.
Maybe even you might have a story of how you were recruited into the Gay lifestyle by someone, ummm, older than yourself at the time.

Care to share? I’m here for you, buddy.

“…and argue that while not all pedophiles are homosexuals .. enough of us are, and that most pedophilic crimes are committed by homosexuals.”

Once again…that’s perhaps what you WISH I’d said…not what I actually said, which was this:

“You familair at all with the pedophilia scandals that have bankrupted Catholic dioceses across the nation?
In almost every single case, it has been homosexual pedophilia that has been the crime.
Did you conveniently overlook that historical fact also?”-post #127

Yup…right on up there, still.

Y’know, sport, you used the word “extinct” a lot, in referring to the GOP in particular and the conservative movement in general.
You also are fond of accusing me of “ignoring reality”.

But here’s a FACT that is a reality that you have ignored since my first reply to you, and it has a bearing on that “extinction” meme you are so fond of bandying about:

We will outbreed you.

And I suspect, in this “Brave New World” that you’re apparently so eagerly awaiting, that homosexuals might really become extinct.

Because if the science comes in that homosexuaity does have a genetic component,(and quite honestly, who can say that it might not?), then it will be but a matter of time before that can be identified and medicated for…or aborted.

And that wouldn’t bode well for the FACTS of your numbers, would it?

Feb 6, 2009 - 5:33 am 132. Bilgeman:

#129 David S:

“I now see that your own sexual insecurity is your reason for hating gays. Get over it. Maybe you are a closet case yourself, but don’t hate others because of your own shortcomings.”

I didn’t know you were Gay, Dave.

Have you met my pal, Tim?

He’s unmarried, y’know…

Feb 6, 2009 - 5:35 am 133. Bilgeman:

#130 Pat J:

“I guess Bilgeman didn’t get the memo how Steele stated as recently as on Fox News Sunday how the GOP should reach out to gay and pro-choice voters.”

Howdy and welcome to the “Sewing Circle”!

Ah-yup. The GOP SHOULD reach out to Gay and Pro-Choice voters:

“VOTE Republican and pay less taxes!”

That’s about it.

Feb 6, 2009 - 5:40 am 134. David S:

@132. Bilgeman:

I’m not gay, but thanks for asking. You might have better luck at one of the ‘lefty’ boards if you are trying to get a date. They seem more tolerant than the PJM crowd.

Anyhow, I wouldn’t want to butt in on your fun with Tim.

Have a splendid weekend.

Peace.

DS

Feb 6, 2009 - 7:46 pm 135. Bilgeman:

#134 David S:

“I’m not gay.”

Sure-sure. You’ll forgive me, then, for assuming that you might be, since you saw fit to pop in and question my own orientation/preference.

Y’know, in our many exchanges together, it had never occurred to ME to wonder or comment about YOUR preference in bed-mates.

Wasn’t pertinent, was it?

(Sorry, Tim-lad. I’m sure you’re a splendid fellow, if a wee bit confused and conceited, but I hope we can find SOMEONE for you. It does make it a bit challenging, though, since you automatically discriminate against any potential life-partners simply because they have vaginas, y’know…)

Feb 7, 2009 - 3:56 am 136. David S:

@135. Bilgeman:

You noted that the ‘attention’ you received was solely from men.

You promote restrictions on the rights of others (gay marriage and abortion), which made it pertinent. Your political views are informed by your own perspective on sexual preference, no doubt colored by the lack of attention paid you by females.

Your concept of a “gay agenda” is so laughable, I thought it was satire at first.

Peace.

DS

Feb 7, 2009 - 6:14 pm 137. Bilgeman:

#136 David S:

“You noted that the ‘attention’ you received was solely from men.”

The anonymous attempts by adult men to seduce me into pedophilic homosexual acts…try as you may to gloss over the ugly facts with euphemisms like “attention” all you like, but I’ll correct you and call bullshit on your bullshit every time you try it.

“You promote restrictions on the rights of others (gay marriage and abortion)”

More of your self-serving distortions.

Gays have no right to marry. Marriage is a State-sanctioned right, and as California, and a bevy of other states have shown, there are specific amendments in their constitutions that limit the recognition of marriage only to ones that exist between a man and a woman.

My position, far from just “promoting restrictions”, is to uphold the status quo…and our cultural traditions about matrimony since before even the founding of the Republic.

As to abortion, you have, like Brother Timmy, chosen to impute to my words a straw-man entirely of your design, (one of the reasons I think that you two might have got it on like a house on fire, he has the same habit. The cold and lonely winter evenings would just fly right by, with the two of you arguing past each other).

I may personally frown on abortion, but I don’t wish to make it illegal.

I simply do not wish to subsidize it as a form of birth control.

“…which made it pertinent.”

And since I’ve shown that your bases for interjecting yourself and your insinuations into what was heretofore largely a “pas de deux” conversation are nothing more than the hobgoblins that you keep in your sordid little mind, then your claim of pertinence is invalid.

I think you just wanted my attention, and weren’t above a cheap shot to gain it.

“Your political views are informed by your own perspective on sexual preference, no doubt colored by the lack of attention paid you by females.”

And lookie there…there’s another one!

Please note for the record that I have made no direct reference whatsoever to your own orientation/preference,(aside from my initial presumptive declaration), and nor have I offered any analysis of your success or failure at it…whichever way you happen to “swing”,(or “swish”, as applicable).

If I WAS to play it YOUR way, however, I might note that you exhibit an unhealthy amount of interest in getting MY attention.

I would further perhaps opine that this trait you have is maybe an effect of the lack of attention paid to you by OTHER men.

But I wouldn’t do that.

Feb 7, 2009 - 7:46 pm 138. David S:

@137. Bilgeman:

There’s a court in Massachusetts that tends to disagree with you on the issue of marriage. Marriage is a state-sanctioned right, that should not be denied based on a religious or cultural basis – only a legal one. Equal protection demands that all persons have the right to marry, or none. Eventually, the right of marriage will be for everyone, despite the unconstitutional amendment to California’s founding document.

Similarly, on abortion, you mischaracterize the issue by claiming that the goal of pro-choice persons is to make abortion the primary means of birth control, which is pure hyperbole. You may not wish to make it illegal, but your support for politicians that do is hypocritical in that case. For abortion to be safe, legal and rare, it needs to be supported by a full range of family planning options – something not happening under GOP governance.

My only interest in you, Bilgeman, is in correcting your characterization of important issues at hand. I noticed you did not address your comments on the “gay agenda”. Perhaps you now realize how absurd your previous comments were.

Peace.

DS

Feb 8, 2009 - 2:42 pm 139. Bilgeman:

David S:

“My only interest in you, Bilgeman, is in correcting your characterization of important issues at hand.”

Oh. certainly. So you endeavor to do this with cheap shots, eh?
Quite the salesman, you must be.

And while you may presume that you are “correcting” my characterizations about anything and everything under the Sun, the validity of this “correction” extends only so far as the limits of your mind,(and those whose water you’re carrying at the moment, plus any dullards who are convinced by your rather unique method of persuasion…IOW, not very many people at all).

I’d think more of you, frankly, if you would fax your “Certificate of Correctness” over to PJM and its staff for posting , so that we can all goggle at and admire it.

“I noticed you did not address your comments on the “gay agenda”. Perhaps you now realize how absurd your previous comments were.”

Like much of what you write, I did not find it much worthy of comment at the time.

But now that you’ve brought the matter up, I will admit that I am utterly amused at your egotistical posturing and how incredibly foolish you have managed to make yourself appear in the late stages of this thread.

You think that you are “correcting” my characterizations.

This YOU said.

One of my characterizations you claim to be here to “correct” is that of the “Gay agenda”.

This presupposes that you are privy to the “correct” characterization of that agenda.

But you claim that you are NOT Gay.
So, barring that absent Certificate I mentioned above, (signed and notarized by every single Gay person in America)…

How would YOU know?

Your posts have made for a most mirthful,(on my part),exchange here, and I heartily compliment you on playing the buffoon so skillfully.

Thank you, my good sir.

BTW, have you noticed that Timmy, who at least admits that he IS Gay and can then be reasonably expected to have more of a “dog in this fight” than you, who are NOT Gay, has apparently stolen the last lifeboat of this quickly foundering craft?

Methinks that you just might have been left on the streetcorner holding a big empty bag, chum.

Feb 8, 2009 - 6:30 pm 140. David S:

@139. Bilgeman:

Oh. certainly. So you endeavor to do this with cheap shots, eh?
Quite the salesman, you must be.

I’m not correcting you solely for your own benefit. Since you feel free to take cheap shots, you’re fair game for the return volley.

@68. [Gay marriage and abortion issues] Are Statist to their very core. They seek to empower the government, and you cannot empower the state unless it be at the expense of the citizenry.

Here you are off the mark. Gay marriage is an issue of equality. The state has already asserted an interest in marriage – unless you seek to repeal all civil marriages, you are going to end up with the gay variety as well. If you want to abolish civil marriage – I bid you well. But you can’t have straight marriage if you don’t provide the same for gays. Abortion is fundamentally exactly what Roe v. Wade decided – a privacy right. It isn’t something that anyone should have to share with another person against their will. It certainly isn’t a “Statist” issue.

What is “Statist” is enforcing a ban on civil marriages for a subset of the population, and trying to legislate the extent of rights that women enjoy in their own body. Both of these are issues where you are clearly on the side of the State trying to coercively influence the private behavior of others.

I need not be privy to the Official Gay Agena® to see your hyperbole for what it is. In case you haven’t noticed, gays use the same kinds of media as other groups – internet and print, primarily. As soon as you provide your very own Certificate of Gay Knowledge©, I’ll fax mine over.

In case you haven’t noticed, you’re the one that “jumped on” first time Republican voter Tim when he showed up to share his 2¢, explaining why the GOP really ought to be on the right side of history based on the philosophy of conservatism. Denying rights to gays and women has a long history, but that’s no reason for Republicans to perpetuate the injustice.

I guess maybe you could work on your salesmanship, too.

Peace.

DS

Feb 8, 2009 - 8:54 pm 141. Bilgeman:

#140 David S:

“I guess maybe you could work on your salesmanship, too.”

Ahhh, but I’m not selling anything. You and Brother Timmy apparently are, since you are in the habit of speaking as though the points of the agenda that you share are inevitabilities.

I’m familiar with the technique, it’s a variation of the “Completion Backward Principle”…get the mark to accept that he’s going to be behind the wheel of the jalopy you’re trying to sell him, and then whip out the financing papers for him to sign.

Workmanlike try, but I’m not buying it.

“In case you haven’t noticed, you’re the one that “jumped on” first time Republican voter Tim when he showed up to share his 2¢”

I jumped on Tim-bo’s case because he exhibited a shocking amount of arrogance. He wasn’t sharing his 2 cents, he was whining that the GOP should perform “gender reassignment surgery”,(if you will), on itself to suit the whims of a fresh-out-of-college California Gay man.
And I suspect that the only reason he can harbor such a laughable expectation is that he, too, has swallowed whole these notional “certainties” that the Gay Cult likes to spout as their sales pitch.

“Here you are off the mark. Gay marriage is an issue of equality.”

And there you go again…standing on that mountaintop of your own ego and demanding that I accept your premise.

“The state has already asserted an interest in marriage – unless you seek to repeal all civil marriages, you are going to end up with the gay variety as well.”

Ha-ha-ha! Did Timmy bequeath you his scare-mongering when he left?
This is as absurd a notion as his bogeymen of “Lurking Socialism” and “Extinction of the GOP” should we all not steer the course he dictated were.

“Abortion is fundamentally exactly what Roe v. Wade decided – a privacy right. It isn’t something that anyone should have to share with another person against their will. It certainly isn’t a “Statist” issue.”

It is a Statist issue when the public monies are used for the Prvate benefit.

Feb 9, 2009 - 4:52 am 142. David S:

@141. Bilgeman:

Keep pulling my leg. You’re trying to sell the same old yarn.

Tim gave you a chance to reflect on the GOP’s failures, and potential solutions. Instead you focus on his sexual orientation, and ignore the valid point he makes.

You laugh at the notion that civil marriage for gays is an equality issue, but you offer no rebuttal.

You claim abortion is different from any other medical procedure, and should not be part of state assistance for medical care.

You imply that abortion is used as a primary method of birth control, although it is often performed to protect the life and health of the mother.

Your sales pitch lacks punch, Bilgeman. You don’t even offer an argument for your own positions, or a rebuttal to mine. Good luck reviving the GOP.

Peace.

DS

Feb 9, 2009 - 9:04 am 143. Bilgeman:

#142 David S:

“Your sales pitch lacks punch, Bilgeman. You don’t even offer an argument for your own positions, or a rebuttal to mine. Good luck reviving the GOP.”

Awwww, that’s mighty sweet of you.

Thankee muchly, but I suspect that it is the likes of you and Brother Timmy, homosexual cultist eco-warrior union members, marching shoulder to shoulder in advocacy, chins uplifted and staring resolutely into the future of the middle distance, who will do FAR more to revive the GOP than any feeble effort that I could muster would.

Feb 9, 2009 - 7:34 pm 144. David S:

@143. Bilgeman:

I suspect that it is the likes of you … who will do FAR more to revive the GOP than any feeble effort that I could muster would.

Well, at least on something we can agree. The GOP isn’t likely to revive itself anytime soon if it depends on folks like you.

I think there is a lot of value in a two party system, and I look forward to a day when the GOP embraces all Americans and contributes something positive to politics. I’m not holding my breath.

Peace.

DS

Feb 10, 2009 - 12:50 am