Tag Archives: democrat

Texas GOP: The New White Supremacist Party

The Texas republican party (ironically known as the Grand Old Party) has stooped to a new low, and I’m not talking about their removal of the slave trade from textbooks; it’s their new party platform. Now if you think erasing history is bad just wait until you hear what they want to do next. The Texas GOP’s 25 page platform of absurdity really pulls out all the stops, some of the details are so insane it almost seems like a script from the show Punked. The platforms section on Government power states that all executive orders are to be eliminated and all previous executive orders are to be repealed. The platform goes on to say, the Texas GOP opposes affirmative action and reparations based on “discriminatory criteria.” And the party is against nationalization of land for protecting endangered species or conservation. Just to clarify, they don’t want national parks or reservations for animals, they’d rather see a parking lot put up over saving a species. Now if the above does not seem all that bad to you, the platform goes on to include things that revert laws to the way things were run in the 1950′s south. Now unless you were born and raised in Texas, I’m sure you know what the Jim Crow laws are now the party’s platform is wanting to get some of those law’s passed again. The party supports the repeal of motor voter laws, re-registering voters every four years, and felon disenfranchisement. Another quick history lesson here, the U.S. constitution has a spot dedicated to the separation of church and state. Texas seems to think that it can just ignore the constitution and the Union of which it is a member. The Texas Republican party platform supports public displays of the ten commandments in government buildings and also enforcing penalties on people who “desecrate” the American flag, which falls under freedom of expression. To further target what the Republicans see as liberal or Democrat; they attack family values. It’s shocking to me that this party knows what family values are. According to the platform, the party seeks to ban homosexuality outright, and to it opposes the legalization of sodomy. Continuing down the path of the extreme the party wishes to make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, or for a civil official to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. Sticking with their support for male only values the party lists its strong disagreement with abortion rights, as well as being strongly opposed to female reproductive rights. Now if you are wanting to adopt a foster kid to bring into your family, the Texas GOP has something for you, they want to repeal the restrictions on corporal discipline for foster children, now you can beat the kid you want to adopt whose life hasn’t been hard enough already. Of course Texas knows what is right for your children as well so they will outlaw sex education in favor of abstinence only education, see my Bristol Palin post to see how well that works. The recently passed health care plan, or ObamaCare as they call it, would also be out, along with your social security checks. So after doing 50 years of work or more and paying into Social Security you would get nothing for your hard labor. Now the GOP is not out of gas yet, they go on to say that any regulations on gun control are out, so your friendly neighborhood felon can get his hands on one too!!! Since they are putting guns in everyone’s hands including rapists, they now want to make rape a death penalty crime. While the deep water horizon oil well continues to leak 60,000 barrels a day into the Gulf, the Texas GOP is turning a blind eye. They want deep water oil drilling in the Gulf to resume immediately. Furthermore, they feel that employers should be allowed to discriminate on any basis, as well as repealing minimum wage. The Texas GOP demands that the U.S. removes itself from the United Nations, and it also calls for a repeal of birthright citizenship unless its to an American, screw the fence just outlaw Mexican Americans. Like I said at first I thought this was a joke, but once you see the platform, you know they are dead serious. They feel that this is Americas true belief system and that Texas sets the standard for all conservatives. Now Texas is run by a Republican, Joe Barton. While this would be laughed out of any other Republican state, in Texas it actually has a chance. It’s frightening that a mainstream party can publish this garbage and get away with mocking the President. I should mention that Texas is the only state allowed to secede from the Union, so if this should ever pass we have the option to force them out. The Infamous Platform can be found http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY… added by: Colin_McCabe

Chris Matthews Calls George W. Bush and Sarah Palin ‘Know-Nothings’

Chris Matthews on Friday called George W. Bush and Sarah Palin know-nothings.  Chatting with California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown on “Hardball,” the MSNBC host also called the Republican candidate for governor in that state Meg Whitman a know-nothing. “What is it in the American psyche or character that says, if you don`t know anything, you`re somehow an average person or average guy and you have horse sense?” asked Matthews. “What is it about people that keep picking people like George W. Bush to be president? And you see these people like Sarah Palin out there with fans.”  It seems in Matthews’ view, governing Texas, Alaska, or running one of America’s leading Internet companies requires zero intellectual capacity (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t Weekly Political Review via Twitter’s @ndgc12dx): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Former California governor Jerry Brown is currently the state`s attorney general. Governor Brown, it`s great to have you on. I just want to ask you, do you think the last seven years have been good for California with Schwarzenegger? Here`s a business guy and movie star, a business guy, who said, I can take business sense, like Meg Whitman, and make government work. It hasn`t — well, has it worked? I`ll leave it as an open question. Has he been a net plus or a net negative? JERRY BROWN (D-CA), ATTORNEY GENERAL, FMR. GOV., CANDIDATE FOR GOV.: Well, certainly in terms of the budget, blowing up the boxes, reorganizing government, it hasn`t. Now, Arnold Schwarzenegger has pioneered the environment and climate change legislation that is really path-breaking, so I give him full credit for that. But in terms of the crisis we`re in now, the idea that not knowing anything, not even caring enough to vote for 28 years, gives you the equipment, the skill, to wrestle those 120 legislators to the ground, get them on your team and deal with this deepening crisis — I doubt that. And if these surveys are any indication, Ms. Whitman has hit a wall for the last — probably since March, not moved forward. And I think we`re in a very strong position to win the confidence of the people and get down to brass tacks here of solving the problem.  MATTHEWS: What is it in the American psyche or character that says, if you don`t know anything, you`re somehow an average person or average guy and you have horse sense? What is it about people that keep picking people like George W. Bush to be president? And you see these people like Sarah Palin out there with fans. Why would anybody like somebody who the campaign manager for John McCain said, “She doesn`t know anything?” Why is not knowing anything — why does the know-nothing candidate, like Meg Whitman, a person who doesn`t have any government experience, have the appeal to be even with you in the polls? The know — the person that doesn`t know anything about government! How disgusting. It’s one thing to make such comments about a former President and a former governor, but to similarly disparage the Republican gubernatorial candidate while interviewing her Democrat opponent demonstrates absolutely NO journalistic impartiality by Matthew. Maybe he should just endorse Brown so that his few viewers would fully understand why he’s so hostile to Whitman. Come to think of it, that could be the next step in MSNBC’s activism. Stay tuned. 

Read the original post:
Chris Matthews Calls George W. Bush and Sarah Palin ‘Know-Nothings’

Governor ‘Moonbeam’ Employs ‘Tea Bagger’ Insult on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’

If former California Gov. Jerry Brown , now once again a candidate for governor of California really wants to be sort of a unifier as he says, he might want to watch how he refers to some of his constituents. On MSNBC’s July 9 “Hardball,” Brown was interviewed by host Chris Matthews and was asked how he could make all the unions in California work together in a political way. (h/t @HayleyMcConnell ) “How do you deal with the kick-butt unions out there?” Matthews said. “They’re really tough. You have the correction officers, you got the police, you got the teachers, the nurses. These are tough, strong well-funded units that are politically cohesive. They took down Gov. [Arnold] Schwarzenegger when he tried to take them down. How do you make them work? How do you get them to serve the public and make reasonable compensation?” Brown wanted to make it clear that they were “all Californians first.” He defended the unions but took a shot at the Tea Party movement by using the “tea bagger” reference, which is a favorite of MSNBC personalities . “First of all you treat them with respect,” Brown replied. “You lay out your agenda, and you get everybody understanding we’re Californians first. We’re not Democrat or Republican or a member of this group or that group. And don’t just say unions are a powerful force. Hey, you know Wall Street destroyed $11 trillion worth of wealth. That’s powerful. No union could do that. Then there’s the tea baggers and the Chamber of Commerce. The key to democracy is leadership what can forge the common purpose. That’s what I feel my entire life has prepared me to take what I learn, work with the diversion conflicting factions and get this common pathway to the future. Seizing the assets of California, which after all is still the eighth wealthiest political entity in the world.”

See the original post:
Governor ‘Moonbeam’ Employs ‘Tea Bagger’ Insult on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’

NBC Offers Additional 35 Seconds to Story of Controversial Medicare Appointment, ABC, CBS Still Silent

NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams became the first evening news broadcast to cover the recess appointment of Donald Berwick to run Medicare. Anchor Brian Williams asserted that “Republicans are angry, claiming it’s antagonistic.” He also observed, ” Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.” NBC has offered the most reporting on Berwick: 20 seconds during the Today show on Wednesday and 35 seconds on Thursday’s Nightly News. Those 55 seconds are still more than ABC and CBS’s morning and evening news programs. Their total remains at zero. Yet, the same morning shows (on July 7 and 8) devoted 52 minutes to the important topic of Lindsay Lohan’s sentencing. Although Williams blandly explained that Berwick has “spoken about the need to ration medical care,” he offered no quotes. While talking to a British audience in 2008, he promised, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care, the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” For more, see CNSNews.com . A transcript of the July 8 segment, which aired at 7:17pm EDT, follows: BRIAN WILLIAMS: In this country, a new political skirmish in Washington over health care. It’s about an appointment President Obama made while Congress was out for the July Fourth break, a so-called recess appointment naming Harvard professor Dr. Donald Berwick to manage Medicare and Medicaid, skipping the usual Senate confirmation process. Republicans are angry, claiming it’s antagonistic. One top Democrat called the recess appointment troubling, but the administration fired back, saying this was one of many appointments being blocked by the Senate. Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.

Continued here:
NBC Offers Additional 35 Seconds to Story of Controversial Medicare Appointment, ABC, CBS Still Silent

The Hill’s Brent Budowsky Compares GOP to South Africa’s Apartheid Regime

Why did the chicken cross the road? Racism, according to the liberal. Isn’t it obvious? Same reason that Republicans and conservatives oppose Obama, the liberal quickly adds. Here’s the latest example of this threadbare line of criticism, from Brent Budowsky, a columnist for The Hill’s Pundits Blog and former congressional staffer. Appearing on Ed Schultz’s radio show Tuesday, Budowsky offered an over-the-top analogy ( click here for audio) — BUDOWSKY: These Republicans today, Ed, are more right wing and obstructionist than the segregationist, racist senators during the days of the civil rights. Even those racist senators that filibustered civil rights, they also supported jobs and Medicare and some other things. You know, we’re up against a party on the Republicans that is so far off the right end, they’re acting like South Africa during the days of apartheid. … aside from not supporting segregation, forced resettlement of millions, state-sponsored violence toward dissenters, government theft of property, laws against mixed marriages —  in other words, aside from those monstrosities and many others that defined apartheid. Other than that, just like ’em.  Among the “racist senators” who filibustered civil rights? Recently deceased Democrat Robert Byrd. Later in the same show, Budowsky provided this gem to Schultz’s listeners ( audio here ) — BUDOWSKY: There is over a trillion and a half dollars sitting in corporate bank accounts being hoarded right now. Once we can liberate that money , and I say you raise taxes for the guys screwing us and you cut taxes for the guys helping us create jobs, but once that money is liberated , it’s a trillion and a half-plus dollars sitting in corporate accounts right now, we’re going to have a quarter, remember where you heard it, it may not be for a year or two, of 7 percent growth. As if transferring more than a trillion dollars to the government won’t liberate it of its potential to create more wealth. Wasn’t this type of alleged liberation a core belief of the Bolsheviks?  Budowsky’s comments reminded me of a remark he made on Schultz’s radio show in March during the contentious final weeks before the House voted on the health bill ( audio here ) — BUDOWSKY: I mean, you look at the Republicans, they attacked Jack Kennedy in Dallas with hate ads when he went there in November 22nd, ’63. They attacked Bill Clinton, they attacked Hillary Clinton, they attacked Al Gore, they attacked Nancy Pelosi, they attacked Charlie Rangel, they attacked ACORN. Those guys on the other side sure do know how to hate. Agreed, Mr. Budowsky — Republicans in Dallas greeted Kennedy with “hate ads.” Just before a left-winger killed him.

Link:
The Hill’s Brent Budowsky Compares GOP to South Africa’s Apartheid Regime

Chris Matthews Stars in Future Marco Rubio Campaign Commercial

Are you happy with the job that the Obama administration and the Democrats are doing? If so, then vote for Charlie Crist for the U.S. Senate because Chris Matthews happily proclaimed that Crist is going to be the new star in the Democrat caucus. However, if you are dissatisfied with the direction this nation is going and want to change it, then Marco Rubio will be your choice which is why your humble correspondent won’t be a bit surprised to see this video of Matthews making his proclamation about Crist on Morning Joe end up as a Rubio campaign commercial. Here is a transcript of Matthews delivering his kiss of death product endorsement of Charlie Crist: Charlie Crist is going to be the new star of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. He’s going to be a major player in the Democratic Party down the road. He’ll be a moderate Democrat somewhere in the middle. I think he’s very shrewd and nimble. This sudden Matthews infatuation with Charlie Crist stands in sharp contrast with his attitude back in May when he was sharply critical of the Florida governor’s performance on Meet The Press where he played coy by avoiding a direct answer about which party he would caucus with and for whom he would vote for Majority Leader of the Senate as you can see in the video below: Here is a transcript of Matthews’ disgust with Crist at that time: …I used to sort of like Charlie Crist but he’s off-base on that. You have to join a party caucus before you can vote for leader. He can’t decide which leader he’s going to vote for because he’s not even voting. He must join a caucus then you get to vote for which person leads that caucus. That’s how it’s done. He doesn’t seem to know that or he rejects knowing it. What do you think? Is he just ignorant or is he playing a game here? So what changed in the past couple of months to cause Matthews to move from disgust with Charlie Crist to developing a “strange new respect” for the Florida governor? Most likely it was the realization by Matthews and fellow liberals that the likely Democrat nominees, Kendrick Meek or billionaire Jeff Greene, have little or no chance of winning the general election in November. Therefore the best chance of promoting the liberal agenda in the Senate would be to back Charlie Crist running as an independent who was too liberal to win the Republican nomination. And Marco Rubio should thank Matthews for that wonderful future campaign commercial clip reminding Florida voters (many of whom still mistakenly think of Crist as a Republican) that Charlie is a Democrat.

View post:
Chris Matthews Stars in Future Marco Rubio Campaign Commercial

State Lawmaker Discredits Campbell Brown’s ‘Misinformation’ About Arizona’s Immigration Law

Debating the fallout of the Obama administration’s attempt to squelch Arizona’s popular immigration law before it goes into effect later this month, CNN’s Campbell Brown on July 6 challenged a chief advocate of the law with a multi-pronged assault, only to see her attacks thwarted and her “misinformation” corrected. In a blatant contradiction, Brown dismissed State Senator Russell Pearce’s (R-Ariz.) “anecdote” about ranchers who are under siege because of the federal government’s failure to secure the porous border, but highlighted anecdotal evidence of opposition to the new law. “Well, I want to stay away from the anecdotal and stick with the figures as much as we can here,” instructed Brown when confronted with evidence of the Obama administration’s inability to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Later in the interview, Brown peddled the minority opinion among law enforcement groups to rebuke Pearce’s assertion that courts have upheld the right of states to enforce federal law: Law enforcement groups, some at least, have expressed concerns about whether they are going to be able to enforce this. There are two separate lawsuits as I’m sure you know in Arizona courts right now. One police officer, I believe, from Tucson suing, claiming the law will — and I have got the right quote here — “seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes.” “Well, those are fabrications,” retorted Pearce, who went on to list myriad law enforcement agencies in Arizona that have endorsed SB-1070 . Brown also took issue with Pearce’s claim that interior enforcement of federal immigration law is down 75 percent under the Obama administration, countering, “I don’t think those numbers are right. But everybody who has been on this program before, on both sides of this issue, has conceded that enforcement is actually stronger along the border with more police.” After Pearce reminded Brown of the distinction between border enforcement and interior enforcement, the CNN anchor conceded the point. Conversely, State Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz), an opponent of the new law, was not raked over the coals for criticizing a law that enjoys widespread public support or for defending the White House’s politically-motivated lawsuit. In fact, Brown merely touted Sinema’s credentials and lobbed her a softball. “Let me ask you, because, as I understand it, you are a constitutional lawyer,” explained Brown. “And Senator McCain says that challenging a law that hasn’t gone into effect is a pretty heavy lift. Does he have a point here?” At the end of the segment, the persistent lawmaker attempted to further discredit the CNN anchor’s fatuous claims, but Brown rushed to dispose of Pearce: “Well, as I said, I wish we had more time to discuss this.” “I do, too,” quipped Pearce. “It’s very important.” The transcript of the segment can be found below: CNN Campbell Brown 7/6/10 8:04 p.m. CAMPBELL BROWN: Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema back with us tonight. She’s a Democrat and a vocal critic of the new law. But also with is state Senator Russell Pearce, a Republican and one of the driving forces behind this new law. And, Senator Pearce, let met start with you. I want to read a little bit from the administration’s lawsuit that says — quote — “A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws.” In other words, federal law trumps state law. How can you take issue with that? Arizona State Senator RUSSELL PEARCE (R): Well, you do take issue. First of all, enforcement is not regulatory, and the courts have ruled on this. The courts, the 5th, 6th, the 8th, the 9th, the 10th Circuit courts have all ruled. The United States Supreme Court has ruled on this, on states’ inherent authority to enforce the law. If Congress had not wanted us to enforce this law, they could have used what are called plenary powers. They’ve never done that. And absent that, through the supremacy clause, states have an inherent authority and responsibility to enforce the law. The misinformation out there is outrageous. The Obama administration simply is filing suit, a political lawsuit, if you will, because they have no leg to stand on, on the preemption issue. They are simply trying to enforce their current policy of no enforcement and amnesty. That’s what it’s about. They are not worried about profiling. This bill prohibits it. They’re not worried about what lawful contact is. The Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, in a 9-0 landmark decision said if you have a lawful contact, you don’t need reasonable suspicion. But we still put it in this bill. This is about an effort to stop any enforcement as they can usher in their amnesty program. It is a non-enforcement policy. That is the policy. Interior enforcement is down 75 percent in this administration. It’s outrageous. States have inherent authority and responsibility. BROWN: I don’t think those numbers are right. I don’t have the figures in front of me. PEARCE: The numbers are right. BROWN: But everybody who has been on this program before, on both sides of this issue, has conceded that enforcement is actually stronger along the border with more police. PEARCE: No, no, no, no. I was talking interior enforcement, not border. BROWN: OK. PEARCE: And even then, I was just down there. I was just down there with the ranchers and the widow of Rob Krentz, Susie. And they said it is worse, it’s as bad or worse than it has ever been. So, again, the misinformation has to stop. BROWN: Well, I want to stay away from the anecdotal and stick with the figures as much as we can here. PEARCE: Those are facts. OK, those are facts. BROWN: All right. Representative Sinema, let me go to you. You have got both of your state senators who say the White House should let the law go into effect and then see what happens before forging ahead with a lawsuit. So, why not wait and see how this shakes out and whether it does do good? Arizona Representative KYRSTEN SINEMA (D): Well, I think’s important to note, first and foremost, that the Department of Justice has the clear authority and legal right to bring suit, even before the law is implemented. This law presents a great challenge and a really interesting legal question for our whole country. And hopefully this lawsuit can provide some clarity for those of us who are state actors, so we know where the state authority ends in terms of implementing immigration reform and where federal authority begins. I think that this law will allow the court to provide clarity not just for Arizona, but for the entire country, so we can have some real guidance on what kind of laws we can move forward with and what kind of laws we have to push Congress to pass and to enforce. BROWN: Let me ask you, because, as I understand it, you are a constitutional lawyer. SINEMA: Right. BROWN: And Senator McCain says that challenging a law that hasn’t gone into effect is a pretty heavy lift. Does he have a point here? SINEMA: Oh, yes. It is difficult to challenge a law before it goes into effect. And what will be happening some time next week is that Judge Bolton, our district court judge, will be hearing what’s called a request for injunction by the other five lawsuits that have already been filed. These groups are asking the court to enjoin the law, which means to stop it from going into effect, on July 29. And the court only grants injunctions when the plaintiffs present a good case and show that they are probably going to win. BROWN: All right. Let me ask you about this, Senator Pearce, because you mentioned this in your comments a minute ago. Law enforcement groups, some at least, have expressed concerns about whether they are going to be able to enforce this. There are two separate lawsuits as I’m sure you know in Arizona courts right now. One police officer, I believe, from Tucson suing, claiming the law will — and I have got the right quote here — “seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes.” I mean, what do you make of those concerns? These aren’t about political issues. These are law enforcement officers, right? PEARCE: Well, those are fabrications. Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the largest law enforcement association in the state of Arizona, endorsed this bill and has filed to be an intervener to support this law. The Arizona Policeman Association, an umbrella organization of over 9,000 police officers, endorsed this bill. Nine out of 15 sheriffs endorsed this bill. The state fraternal order of police endorsed this bill. The Border Patrol Association endorsed this bill. That is such a fabrication. You always have an individual. The police chiefs don’t endorse it because they work for open-border mayors, sanctuary mayors, who have always stated they don’t want to enforce the law, have done everything they can not to enforce it. Let me bring up an interesting point. BROWN: Hold on. Before you bring up that point, let me let her, let me let Representative Sinema respond to that, because we are running out of time for here. Go ahead. SINEMA: Well, I do think it is important to note that many law enforcement officers are struggling with the failure of Congress to enact meaningful comprehensive reform. Right now in our state, we really are struggling with the lack of some kind of comprehensive law that gives law enforcement and police officers the tools they need to keep our communities safe. But some law enforcement officials have indicated some concern about the law because they could be sued for enforcing the law or sued for not enforcing the law. BROWN: Right. SINEMA: So, it does place some of them in a difficult position. BROWN: Representative Sinema and Senator Pearce, I know there are very strong views on both sides of this issue. PEARCE: Well, I would like to correct some of the misinformation. BROWN: Well, as I said, I wish we had more time to discuss this. PEARCE: I do, too. It’s very important. BROWN: But thank you both for coming on. Really appreciate your time. SINEMA: Thanks so much, Campbell. PEARCE: Thank you. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read this article:
State Lawmaker Discredits Campbell Brown’s ‘Misinformation’ About Arizona’s Immigration Law

USA Today Spins Liberal Lincoln Chafee as a ‘Centrist’ and a ‘Moderate’

According to USA Today’s Susan Page, Lincoln Chafee, a Republican who left the party and voted for Barack Obama in 2008, is simply a “moderate.” A cover story for Tuesday’s edition of the paper features the misleading sub-headline: ” Centrists Fuel Big Crop of Contenders This Year. ” Nowhere in the 1800 word piece does Page describe Chafee as a liberal. Instead, Chafee, now running for governor of Rhode Island as an independent, is part of a “rebellion in the middle.” Page sympathetically described the politician’s exit from the Republican Party after losing his 2006 reelection bid: “Chafee felt rejected by the GOP, which no longer seemed willing to include moderate Republicans like himself.” Of course, Chafee’s lifetime American Conservative Union score was a meager 34. (To repeat, this was when he was a Republican.) Such a number put him to the left of Democrats such as Ben Nelson and only slightly less liberal than Robert Byrd. Yet, Page touted Chafee not as a liberal, but as a truth teller: He may be testing voters’ appetite for honesty: In his announcement speech, he suggested addressing the state’s daunting budget gap by levying a 1% sales tax on food, clothing, over-the-counter drugs and other items now exempt from the state’s 7% sales tax. In a six-way debate on WPRI-TV in June — among two Democratic candidates, two Republicans and two independents — Chafee’s tax proposal was the first question raised by moderator Tim White and the prime target of attack. “He wants to raise taxes and I want to cut spending,” Democrat Frank Caprio, the state treasurer and Chafee’s leading competitor, said after the debate when asked about his strategy. “That’s the difference between us.” Consider the facts here: The Democratic candidate is attacking Chafee for lobbying to raise taxes. Shouldn’t that be enough for Page to describe Chafee as a liberal? Later, Page returned to the concept of raising taxes as simple honesty: Chafee acknowledges that suggesting the tax hike is a calculated risk. He’s counting on voters to reward a straightforward discussion of the options ahead. If they don’t, he says, the fault will be his own failure to communicate and convince them. The USA journalist also touted other party switchers as examples of moderation: “There are more signs of centrists stirring as national politics remain sharply polarized, a factor some candidates cite for leaving or being pushed from their old allegiances.”

Original post:
USA Today Spins Liberal Lincoln Chafee as a ‘Centrist’ and a ‘Moderate’

Cynthia Tucker: ‘Steele Would’ve Been Fired Long Time Ago Were He Not Black’

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker on Sunday said that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele “is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black.”  Chatting with ABC’s Jake Tapper during the Roundtable segment of today’s “This Week” about Steele’s recent remarks concerning Afghanistan, Tucker went even further with what many would consider overt racism.  “The irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Cynthia, you once called, let me underline “You” once called Michael Steele an affirmative action hire gone bad. What’s your take on this? CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Well, Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course, the irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black. Let’s remember how the Party wound up with Michael Steele. In November 2008, the Party was devastated that the Democrats had elected the nation’s first black president while the Republican Party was stuck with being seen as largely the party of aging white people, with good reason. A party that was hostile to people of color, especially blacks and Latinos. So the Party needed a new face, preferably a face of color, and they didn’t have very many officials to choose from. So, they came up with Michael Steele. And it is very ironic since the Republicans have been so critical of affirmative action, to watch them stuck with their affirmative action hire that they dare not get rid of because that would generate even more controversy. If this were said about a black Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, or any high-ranking black Democrat, the media, the NAACP, and the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be up in arms demanding that person’s resignation. But because Steele is a black Republican, this kind of talk is completely acceptable. In fact, nobody on the panel including the host even batted an eye when Tucker made these disgusting remarks. Yet there’s a potentially even more striking hypocrisy here: didn’t Tucker with her accusation admit that some incompetent black people are hired exclusively because of the color of their skin, and they don’t get fired for exactly the same reason? As such, wasn’t Tucker accidentally making a case AGAINST affirmative action?  Somehow you imagine she missed this while she was eviscerating Steele on national television. 

Continue reading here:
Cynthia Tucker: ‘Steele Would’ve Been Fired Long Time Ago Were He Not Black’

Newsweek: ‘Why We Sexualize GOP Women’ – ‘Too Hot to Handle’

Newsweek on Saturday did an astonishingly poor job of exploring why Republican women are suddenly being attacked for their beauty. “There seems to be an insistent, increasingly excitable focus on the supposed hotness of Republican women in the public eye, like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, and Nikki Haley-not to mention veterans like Ann Coulter,” the article now being prominently featured at the magazine’s website began. Hypocritically, Julia Baird’s piece never once explained or wondered why the same thing isn’t being done to Democrat women. Instead, the numerous headlines exclusively trivialized physically attractive GOP females such as the following from the website’s front page (h/t Twitter’s @buszero):   Once entering the website to the actual article, readers were presented with another set of tasteless headlines (photo courtesy AP):  Doesn’t the headline “Too Hot to Handle” defeat the purpose of exposing sexism? Or wasn’t that Baird’s point? It’s odd to see how some men insist that when women start to grasp power, we should think of them primarily as playthings and provocateurs. Is this the best way to explain their success? They aren’t challenging the status quo. They’re being wild! They’re not trying to lift the ban on offshore drilling. They’re being naughty! When four women beat a field of men on the same night recently, competing for primary and gubernatorial nominations, it was widely referred to as “ladies’ night.” Aren’t ladies’ nights those promotions where women are allowed free entry into bars to provide fodder for the men? Women in politics are used to being trivialized, and have tended to dress and behave soberly in response. The wisdom has long been that discussions about their sexuality are not just distracting and degrading, but also destructive. Indeed? Baird then offered some statistics to support this view: One in six members of Congress is female; out of a total of 535 seats, Republican women hold only 21, or 4 percent. It’s hardly an onslaught. The number of women holding state-wide executive office has dropped since 2002, from 88 to 72 of the 315 positions. There are only six women governors. So no matter how striking the incremental gains, we’ve got a long way to go before approaching anything resembling equality. Which is why we need to remember that these women are not competing to see who has the most smokin’ bod. They want to run the country, or their part of it. They want votes, not free drinks-and we need properly scrutinized candidates, not circus performers. That’s correct. But why did Baird’s article about this subject DEMEAN women with a headline like “Too Hot to Handle?” And why did her first paragraph include the phrase “increasingly excitable focus on the supposed hotness of Republican women?” That’s NOT the way a female writer encourages people to “remember that these women are not competing to see who has the most smokin’ bod.” Also in the first paragraph was the following disgusting reference: Playboy  even ran an outrageous piece titled “Ten Conservative Women I’d Like to Hate F–k,” which read like a sick attempt to make rape cool. “We may despise everything these women represent,” wrote the author, “but goddammit they’re hot. Let the healing begin.”  This was a truly disgraceful piece published at Playboy’s website last year, so much so that readers didn’t need to be reminded of its existence.   Making matters worse, Baird completely ignored the double standard whereby Democrat women in politics are not so victimized. This undermined any attempt on her part to discredit those doing it to Republican women. Whether intentional or not, this was another disgusting representation of GOP females that the National Organization for Women would come down strongly against if it was written about Democrats. It really does require a tremendous rationalization talent to be a liberal woman in America today, doesn’t it? 

Read the rest here:
Newsweek: ‘Why We Sexualize GOP Women’ – ‘Too Hot to Handle’