Tag Archives: Republican Crazy

First Rule of Marketing: Know Your Audience

In February, the RNC’s Finance Team had a retreat in Florida. In the meeting they gave a powerpoint presentation on how the RNC plans to inspire people to donate. Unfortunately for the RNC, someone accidentally left a copy of the presentation behind in the hotel and it was found. Politico has the scoop:

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to “save the country from trending toward socialism.”

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.

The official policy of the Republican National Committee is fear and calling Obama a socialist. I love this part:

Under Direct Marketing it says the following:

Visceral Giving:
– Fear
– Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration
Issue/circumstantially oriented
– Reactionary

Yes, the RNC called its own donors reactionary and driven by fear and negative feelings of Obama.

Under Major Donors it says:

Calculated Giving:
– Peer to Peer Pressure
– Networking Opportunities
– Access
– Wall of Fame
– Ego-Driven
– Personal

Just to drive home the point that Republicans are officially spreading fear (and apparently, aren’t very mature), they also offer this slide:

Yeah, I have no idea either what they mean by comparing Harry Reid to Scooby Doo.

You can see the whole 72-page presentation at this link.

Dispatches From the GOP Braintrust

Michael Zak, a blogger at Big Government (one of Andrew Breitbart’s sites) compares ACORN to the KKK:

ACORN does indeed operate like the Mafia, but it more closely resembles another organization that began as an affiliate of the Democratic Party, the Ku Klux Klan. Aside from intimidating some bank executives, ACORN does not engage in violence, but like the KKK it has vote fraud as a top priority.

I totally see the parallel. The KKK would ride at night in hoods to terrify African-Americans, and sometimes to hang them if they got out of line. ACORN registers poor people to vote. That’s totally the same thing.

Like ACORN, the Ku Klux Klan operated with impunity until Republican politicians and journalists sounded an alarm. In 1869, Nathan Bedford Forrest, the KKK’s Grand Dragon, ordered the Klan disbanded. Why? The national organization was getting too much attention, so Klansmen would have to soldier on in state-level organizations, such as the Red Shirts in South Carolina and the Men of Justice in Alabama. Nonetheless, most members of these spin-off groups considered themselves to be Klansmen.

Exactly, the Klan was a domestic terrorist organization. ACORN was brought down by doctored videos and dishonest Congressmen. Republicans are always the victims, aren’t they? I mean, there’s no way that they could actually get less votes than Democrats unless Democrats were cheating, right?

Rush Limbaugh is running out of terrifying things to compare Democrats to judging by his latest example:

On ABC’s This Week last Sunday, host Elizabeth Vargas asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) what she would say to her members “who are in real fear of losing their seats in November” when it comes time for the House to vote on health care reform again. Pelosi replied that “we are not here just to self perpetuate our service in Congress. We’re here to do the job for the American people.” The comment was interpreted as Pelosi saying that lawmakers should sacrifice their jobs for health care reform. On his radio show yesterday, Rush Limbaugh took that a step further, saying that “Mullah Nancy Bin Pelosi” was “no different” than those who “convince all these people to put bombs on their kids.” Listen here:

Exactly, because getting health insurance for millions of Americans who don’t have it is just the same as strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up innocent people.

The Right Continues To Embrace Terrorists

Do you remember Prof. Ward Churchill?

In January 2005, Churchill’s work attracted publicity because of the widespread circulation of a 2001 essay, “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens”. In the essay, he claimed that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a natural and unavoidable consequence of what he views as unlawful US policy, and he referred to the “technocratic corps” working in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns.”

Immediately Ward Churchill became a controversial figure. He was uninvited to several appearances and was personally condemned by the president of his university. He eventually lost his job at the university.

Churchill’s contention was that 9/11 was a result of U.S. policies and that the victims deserved it.

Is Rep. Peter King (R-IA) the right’s Ward Churchill?

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told a crowd at CPAC on Saturday that he could “empathize” with the suicide bomber who last week attacked an IRS office in Austin, and encouraged his listeners to “implode” other IRS offices, according to a witness.

King’s comments weren’t recorded, but a staffer for Media Matters, who heard the comments, provided TPMmuckraker with an account.

So, currently serving member of Congress Peter King thinks the victims probably deserved it and that more IRS offices should be targeted. So far the reaction has been – yawn.

Just so you know, here’s domestic terrorist Joe Stack’s victim:

When Ken Hunter first heard about a plane crashing into his father’s office building in Austin, he said he hoped his dad, Vernon Hunter, wasn’t there.

After several attempts to reach his father, a 67-year-old IRS worker, he discovered his dad was missing.

“There was just too much going on about what the guy did and what he believed in, and enough’s enough,” he said. “They don’t need to talk about him. Talk about my dad. You know, some people are trying to make this guy out to be a hero, a patriot. My dad served two terms in Vietnam. This guy never served at all. My dad wasn’t responsible for his tax problems.”

Foster said Vernon Hunter was a proud Vietnam Vet and a great neighbor.

“He was just a real tender man,” he said. “It was always good to talk to him. He was just a nice guy.”

Now, as cars gather in front of the Hunter residence, a neighborhood braces itself and offers support.

Vernon Hunter leaves behind a wife, a son and daughter and six grandchildren.

Vernon Hunter, IRS employee, Vietnam veteran, husband, father and grandfather was the victim of the senseless act of Joe Stack.

VA GOP Legislator: Disabled Children Are God’s Punishment

The rhetoric of anti-abortion groups is often a bit incoherent. They believe that children are both blessings and punishment.This statement was particularly vile:

State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.

He made that statement Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood.

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.

“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

Anti-choice groups have been spreading misinformation about abortion for a long time. Ever hear that abortions increase your chances for cancer – that’s anti-abortion propaganda. How will other anti-abortion groups respond? Will they support Delegate Marshall? What about Sarah Palin – will she engage in a feud?

Mt. Vernon Statement

Conservatives had an event for the launch of the CPAC conference where they unveiled a new document called the “Mt. Vernon Statement.” This is a statement of conservative principles that they expect all Republicans to sign.

The Mount Vernon Statement

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
* It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
* It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

So, after reading that do you think Republicans are pro-choice and anti-DADT now? Also, doesn’t it just spell out their sense of victimhood?

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics.

They are anti-university?

Personally, it sounds like a whole lot of nothing and even Richard Vigurie agrees with me:

This is embarrassing. If the people in the leadership of the conservative movement are going to put out pablum like this, the tea party people are going to make them seem irrelevant. And the tea party people are going to march to the forefront. This is almost as if the movements leaders were taken over by Tom DeLay and John Boehner.

Vigurie signed the document anyway.

CPAC Childish Behavior Separates the Boys from the Girls

Aren’t they adorable!

The Washington Scene reports that this year’s CPAC will prominently feature a Nancy Pelosi piñata and a Harry Reid punching bag for guests to take turns beating

Boringly predictable, but I simply adored this next line – because it says so much!

“We’re hoping to have the females whack the piñata and males try their hand at a Harry Reid punching bag,”

Who knew hitting someone with a stick is more feminine?

Lunacy

On Joy Behar’s CNN show, she had a round table to discuss Sarah Palin’s speech at the Tea Party Nation convention. On the panel were Stephanie Miller, Ron Reagan and an unhinged rightwing nutcase Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs). Geller is completely unhinged claiming that Palin didn’t quit her job as governor, she answered the call from the lower 48; that Ronald Reagan would have loved Sarah Palin and when Ron Reagan disagreed said that Ron Reagan had never met his own father.

Partial transcript:

Behar: Ronald, let me ask Ron — why do we pay attention to this woman? She has a point.

Reagan: Well, indeed, and I think we do have to pay attention to her, unfortunately — it’s sad that we have to pay attention to her, because she’s totally unqualified for high office. Yet —

Geller: Your father would love her. Your father would love her.

Miller: First of all, his father didn’t quit halfway through the term.

Geller: Neither did she. Neither did she. She did not quit. The Lower 48 needed her, and she heeded the call. She did not take the easy way out.

Reagan: No, she quit. No, Pam, she quit. When you leave the governorship halfway through your first term, it’s called quitting. She quit.

Geller: She came to lead the next revolution.

Reagan: Quit. Quit.

Behar: Ron, Ron — no, I want to hear from Ron. Why would your father not like this woman?

Reagan: Because she doesn’t have a thought in her head. That’s why.

Geller: That’s what they said about your father.

Reagan: My father knew what he stood for, you can agree with it or disagree with it, he knew how — what he stood for, he could explain what he stood for. He was conversant in domestic and foreign policy — she’s neither! She can’t explain where she stands on anything!

Geller: Your father would love her, and frankly I don’t think you can speak for your father, because you — you don’t even espouse —

Reagan: No, Pam, actually, have you ever met my father, Pam? Pam, did you ever meet my father?

Geller: Did you ever meet the Founding Father. I’ve read everything he said. I’ve read everything he said.

Reagan: Did you ever meet my father? I’m asking you a simple question. You can’t answer that because the answer is no. So why don’t you rely on someone who knew him very well to tell you what he would think of Sarah Palin.

Behar: It’s really hard for you to argue with the offspring of the guy and claim you know more than he does.

Geller: He’s nothing like the father! He doesn’t share the epistemology of the father. He doesn’t have the nature of his father, the knowledge — he has nothing in common with the father. Look —

Behar: He knows what his father would think rather than you.

[Crosstalk]

Reagan: Is Pam still blathering about me and my father? Oh, you are. You still haven’t met him, though, right? You still didn’t know him, so you’re just sort of making things up as you go along, right?

Geller: You never met him either. You know, you never met him either. Do you think you’re making your father proud? Do you really think you’re making your father proud?

Things Are Tough All Over

Michael Steele and Harold Ford have a tour where they go around debating each other (don’t ask me why). During one of these appearances Michael Steele reflected on the plight of the common man:

The two often traded jokes, especially when Steele panned President Barack Obama’s long-stated plan to let income tax rates return to higher levels for families making more than $250,000 a year.

“Trust me, after taxes, a million dollars is not a lot of money,” Steele said.

Oh yes, the mere uni-millionaire can only afford to pay the maid and gardener one day a week and can barely afford the diamond-encrusted toilet paper holders. We feel for your suffering, Mr. Steele.

The RNC Explains The Political Gender Gap

The RNC has a plan on how to recruit women candidates:

“Women sometimes need a little more handholding, or they need their friends to help them make a decision. And by our going in and talking to them and recruiting and educating and training them to either get involved in a campaign or become a candidate, we’re giving them the tools so that they can do that on their own.”

— RNC co-chair Jan Larimer, quoted by The Hotline, on the Republican party’s strategy to recruit more women candidates.

I would put a snarky remark/witty comment here but there’s no man around to hold my hand.

Republican Idiocy, Continued

Yesterday pandora posted about the preliminary release of the R2K/dKos poll of Republicans. Today the full poll was released (full results). There are some disturbing results:

GAYS

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Yes 26
No 55
Not Sure 19

Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

Yes 7
No 77
Not Sure 16

Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?

Yes 11
No 68
Not Sure 21

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

Yes 8
No 73
Not Sure 19

SCHOOLS

Should sex education be taught in the public schools?

Yes 42
No 51
Not Sure 7

Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

Yes 77
No 15
Not Sure 8

WOMEN

Are marriages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?

Men 13
Equal 76
Not Sure 11

Should women work outside the home?

Yes 86
No 4
Not Sure 10

Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

Yes 31
No 56
Not Sure 13

Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?

Yes 34
No 48
Not Sure 18

Do you consider abortion to be murder?

Yes 76
No 8
Not Sure 16

Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?

Christ 67
Other 15
Not Sure 18

There’s a lot here to chew on but 31% think contraception should be outlawed? 77% think the Bible should be taught as science. That’s nuts. I’m sorry, but where am I going to find common ground?

The Party Of Old Ideas

You have to give it to the Republicans. They aren’t really the Party of No, they are the Party of Old Ideas. Just one year after the spectacular failure of conservative governance, the GOP is ready to recycle its worst ideas:

In the name of deficit reduction, House Republicans are going back to the Social Security well, offering budget proposals similar to those President George W. Bush proposed after his 2004 re-election that would privatize Social Security accounts and reduce cost of living adjustments.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) appeared on Hardball tonight and advocated balancing the budget by privatizing Social Security and cutting benefits for those now under 55.

Because the stock market always goes up! I don’t see what could possible go wrong. Hensarling is not the only Republican who can’t wait to raid Social Security. Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan is ready to jump on board too:

At the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has been getting a lot of attention (including shout-outs of a sort from OMB Director Peter Orszag) for his proposed budget plan. But Ryan’s plan too harkens back to earlier Bush proposals, with a call for private accounts:

As these personal accounts continue to accumulate wealth, they will eventually replace the funding that comes through the government’s pay-as-you-go system. This will reduce the demand on government spending, lead to a larger overall benefit for retired workers, and restore solvency to the Social Security Program.

Ryan’s plan also suggests reducing Social Security’s cost of living adjustments, which are currently based on wage growth, by linking them to the consumer price index instead. Ryan’s privatization plan would be phased in beginning with workers 55 and under.

All people under 55 should just go screw themselves, I guess.