Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: GOP Faces Demographic Dilemma



Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Photos by Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images, Rob Carr/AP Photo and Mary Ann Chastain/AP Photo

Quick -- think of the three faces of the Republican party: Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich immediately come to mind.

What do these men all have in common? They are over 50 years old, male, white and staunchly conservative.

That -- in a nutshell -- is the problem facing Republicans today, an imbroglio cast in sharp relief by a new analysis by Gallup of more than 26,000 interviews conducted in May.

Nearly nine in ten (89 percent) Republicans are white with the vast majority of those people describing themselves as "conservative" (63 percent). Just seven percent of Republicans are either Hispanic (five percent) or black (two percent).

Compare that to the composition of those who call themselves Democrats -- 65 percent white, 19 percent black and 11 percent Hispanic -- in the Gallup data and you quickly have a sense of the enormity of the problem for Republicans as they try to re-brand (and re-imagine) themselves.

"Republicans have a clear monopoly on the allegiance of white, conservative Americans but the GOP's challenge is to figuring out whether this is enough of a base on which to build for the future," writes Gallup poll director Frank Newport.

John Weaver, a longtime Republican strategist, said that diversifying the party demographically is an absolute necessity, arguing that the debate over whether or not to do so is "worrisome" in and of itself.

"Any student of political history knows political movements do not remain static," added Weaver. "They either grow -- and remain relevant -- or they recede -- and risk being replaced. And we're currently headed lickety-split down the replacement path."

What can Republicans do to reverse the current trends?

Danny Diaz, a former Republican National Committee official who is now a consultant, said that the two most critical ways through which the GOP can correct the demographic problems plaguing the party are recruiting and registration.

"Republican efforts to recruit candidates from every walk of life and register voters in states like New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida are absolutely critical," said Diaz. "Our messengers across the country must reflect the concerns of their communities, and have the tools and support necessary to achieve success."

Recruiting minority candidates has been an on-again, off-again project of the Republican party. When Ken Mehlman chaired the RNC earlier this decade, he made a concerted effort to recruit and fund African American candidates -- Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania, Michael Steele in Maryland -- and reach out to the black community.

It largely backfired; Swann and Steele (as well as Ken Blackwell in Ohio) all lost while Republicans got just 10 percent of the African American vote in 2006 and just four percent in 2008 facing the historic candidacy of Barack Obama.

There are some signs of optimism for Republicans on the recruitment front -- Marco Rubio, the first Hispanic Speaker of the Florida House, is running for Senate and African American Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier is considering a run for Senate in Colorado.

Still, national Republicans have endorsed Rubio's opponent in the primary -- Gov. Charlie Crist -- and Frazier is by no means a certain (or solid) statewide candidate.

Demographics, in politics, is destiny. Republicans must find a way to solve their demographic dilemma quickly or risk being a minority party for years to come.

Tuesday's Fix Picks:

1. President Obama, in an interview with NPR, reiterates his support for a Palestinian state.
2. USA Today/Gallup poll shows American public opposes Gitmo closure.
3. Excerpts from Richard Wolff's book on Obama.
4. Nevada passes a domestic partnership law.
5. Hannah Montana, season four, is a go.

Voters are Voting! (In N.J.): The New Jersey Republican gubernatorial primary concludes today with former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie expected to triumph over former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan. After a rocky start to his candidacy, Christie appears to have stabilized and polling shows him with steady twenty-point edge over Lonegan. Both national parties will be watching closely to see whether Christie, a first-time candidate, over or underperforms his polling. Assuming Christie wins (no matter the margin), Republicans will target this state in the fall, believing that the economic collapse has badly weakened Gov. Jon Corzine (D) as he seeks a second term.

Steele Tries to Set Sotomayor Groundrules: In an op-ed set to run in POLITICO today, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele praises Judge Sonia Sotomayor for her "remarkable" personal story but insists that his party will pursue several avenues of "appropriate questions" about her legal background. Among those acceptable lines of questioning, according to Steele, are Sotomayor's comments at Duke in 2005 about the proper role of the courts in legislating, the president's argument for "empathy" in a justice, and Sotomayor's "courtroom temperament." Left unsaid but clearly present in Steele's oped is that personal attacks on Sotomayor -- some of which have already been launched by conservatives -- are not acceptable. While Steele is the de facto leader of the GOP, this will be an interesting test case: will the party fall in line behind him?

Follow Me: Three good New York Times Twitterers -- David Carr, Brian Stelter, Jen Preston.

DNC Fall Meeting in Texas: Seeking to send an electoral message, the Democratic National Committee will hold its fall confab from Sept. 10-12 in Austin, Texas. "I believe Texas is poised to move towards our column, just as Virginia has," wrote DNC Chairman (and Virginia governor) Tim Kaine in an email to supporters announcing the gathering. Democrats have been decimated in the Lone Star State in recent years -- a 2003 re-redistricting championed by then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay cost the party six House seats -- but the rapid growth of the Hispanic vote in the state (one in every five voters in 2008 was Latino) has given Democrats hope. The party's biggest test will come in the special election triggered by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R) resignation -- expected at some point this fall -- to run against Gov. Rick Perry (R) in 2010. Houston Mayor Bill White and former state Comptroller John Sharp are both running for the Democratic nod and are widely seen as the party's best hope of reclaiming a foothold in statewide office.

Say What?: "I'm not running for president." -- Nevada Sen. John Ensign (R) during an appearance in Iowa Monday. Not yet, anyway.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 2, 2009; 5:46 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Coleman Campaign: 'Very Encouraged' by Supreme Court Hearing
Next: McHugh to Be Army Secretary, Special Election Looms

Comments

Michael Steele Asks That Republicans Stop Being Such Racist Dickwads About Sotomayor.

Michael Steele, the actual elected-by-his-peers (barely) leader of the Republican Party, continues to have this problem with fat unelected sociopaths such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich loudly and boorishly pushing the GOP into forever-fringe third-party nutland.

For example, the turds are currently doing the usual fat-white-racist-republican deal of yelling “racist!” at someone who is a different race.

Posted by: opp88 | June 3, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

They used to just yell the various racial epithets, but now they have developed this bizarre tactic of instead yelling “racist!” It is, of course, insane. And hapless Michael Steele would like them to stop, because, duh, only 21% of Americans currently identify themselves as Republicans, and as this awful s.h.i.t continues, it’s going to be 15% and then 10% and pretty soon they’ll just be a dumber, fatter version of Le Pen’s racist fringe party in France, just so crazy proud when they have a big year and get 20 seats in Congress.

Steele was guest-hosting Bill Bennett’s talk-radio show today — apparently Bill Bennett has a wingnut talk-radio show, too — and used his patented fake-sounding hip-hop talk to warn Limbaugh & Co. to stop presenting the Republican philosophy (racism) so honestly:

“I’m excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position,” Steele said. He added that instead of “slammin’ and rammin’” on Sotomayor, Republicans should “acknowledge” the “historic aspect” of the pick and make a “cogent, articulate argument” against her for purely substantive reasons.

Steele warned that because of the attacks, “we get painted as a party that’s against the first Hispanic woman” picked for the Supreme Court.

Yes, that happens when the only people left in your party are mouth-breathing crap-bags whose entire opposition comes down to psychopathic hatred of the colored people with the edumacations.

Posted by: opp88 | June 3, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Newt Gingrich stated to The Economist that he believes the George W. Bush policy of "aggressive national security" kept the US safe and "blocked a number of planned attacks", but he admitted that "it is clear we are not yet winning".

He unequivocally endorses waterboarding of enemies and believes that it is "not torture". He accuses the Clinton and Obama admistration of "treating terrorists within a criminal-justice framework", saying that this "failed to keep [the US] safe" and is anti-national security.

Posted by: opp88 | June 3, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Newton "Newt" Leroy Gingrich (born Newton Leroy McPherson on June 17, 1943)Present:

has been married three times. He married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old (she was seven years his senior at 26 years old). They had two daughters and divorced in 1981.

In 1981, six months after his divorce was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther. He remained married to Ginther until 2000, when they divorced.

Shortly thereafter, Gingrich married Callista Bisek, at approximately the same time he was leading the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Newt and Callista Gingrich currently live in McLean, Virginia.

A Baptist since graduate school, Gingrich converted to Catholicism, his wife's faith, on March 29, 2009.

Posted by: opp88 | June 3, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Sonia Maria Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, and was born in the Bronx,
graduated with an A.B., summa cum laude, from Princeton University in 1976, and received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979, where she was an editor at the Yale Law Journal.

She was an advocate for the hiring of Latino faculty at both schools. She worked as an Assistant District Attorney in New York for five years before entering private practice in 1984.

She played an active role on the boards of directors for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the State of New York Mortgage Agency, and the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush in 1991 and confirmed in 1992.

Posted by: opp88 | June 3, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

During questioning, Cheney said while there was no evidence that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

As to why the Bush administration had not captured Osama bin Laden, he said it would love to have done so and then added: "I don't think he has the capacity to do as much harm as he did once."

Posted by: opp88 | June 3, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Those picture say it all- GOP= old, white, fat and ugly

Posted by: marSF | June 3, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

The problem with this article is its central tenet - that the Republican Party is making no efforts to diversity and is largely uninterested in doing so. This problem begins with the very first sentence. Cheney and Gingrich are the Republican Leaders of a political generation past. Limbaugh never was a "republican party leader," regardless of the current administration's attempts to portray him as such. When I go through the exercise of quickly thinking about my top three influential republican party leaders, they are: Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, Eric Cantor.

Not one of these three is a white, protestant male. Each of them fits in a typically democratic demographic.

So your main premise is flawed. Sure the party needs to expand its base to appeal to a broader audience - that's a political truism of minority parties in general.

But that's the VOTERS - not the LEADERSHIP. You seem to conflate the two here to make the issue sound more dire than it actually is. As you pointed out, the 2008 election was historic, particularly from a demographic point of view. Beyond that, we're still basically a 50-50 nation.

Posted by: mjdaniels | June 3, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

You're a Republican and you're feigning to be all outraged about racism. Any idea how ridiculous that is? No Republican has any standing on racism. Leave that party before you open your mouth on this again.

Posted by: chrisfox8
_____
No what's ridiculous is you answering my points by talking about everything but the firefigter case. Look I can see why you want to change the subject. it is a LOSER or Democrats.. but talking about Bush and McCain primary in 2000??? Argue the CENTRAL POINT.. does Frank Ricci deserve to be promoted or not??? Anything else you throw up is just a smoke screen because lets face it... there is no good reason why he didn't get promoted.

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

What you call simpler I call ACCURATE. And you can try to rationalize this anyway you want but the FACT is if these firefighers were Black this test would not have been thrown out. So the firefighters RACE was the reason.. The city of New Haven didn't get people with the race THEY WANTED to pass so they threw the test out... Actually it is pretty simple, why can't you understand it???

==

You're a Republican and you're feigning to be all outraged about racism. Any idea how ridiculous that is? You're loyal to the party that bases most of its electoral appeal on thinly- or unveiled racism. You probably voted for Bush in 2000 after his campaign scuttled McCain with the black love-child suggestions. The same party that's made so much hay about "illegal" aliens, an extra word limpeted to some very plain baiting of brown-skinned people. The party of the Southern Strategy.

I doubt very much you raised any objection during the previous eight years, but a couple of white firemen in Connecticut get passed over and wow, you're shocked! Shocked! to find gambling at Rick's.

No Republican has any standing on racism. Leave that party before you open your mouth on this again.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

No sympathy. Back when we had segregates schools the nonwhite schools always got less money and less everything.
Posted by: chrisfox8
______
So this woman and her kid should be PUNISHED for that?? They responsible for the past how? This is a question of fairness.. and thankfully the Supreme Court saw she was RIGHT.

When I was in school I walked over a mile every day. Her kid gets to talk a bus. So bloody what.
Posted by: chrisfox8
____
So it's bloody DISCRIMINATION! Why do Liberals get all up in arms when Blacks are discriminated against but when it is a White family you say.. so what??? I thought you guys were for equal rights???

I think your Roberts/Alito quip makes you a troll more than someone who actually cares about some kid having to take a bus.
Posted by: chrisfox8
____
It's because I care about these kids and firefighters that I say thank God for Roberts and Alito.. People who judge on fairness NOT Skin color,


Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Chris Matthew's brother Jim is a R running for Pa Lt Governor. I am sure Chris has voted for him a time or two for state office, so your premise is incorrect.
Posted by: leichtman
_____
First unless you actually heard Matthews say he voted for his brother you can't be sure. Second even if he did FAMILY DOESN'T COUNT! My brother could be a dye in the wool Liberal and I would vote for him.. The point is Matthews is a Democrat to the core...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

It's a lot simpler to say "the test was thrown out because the fire fighters were White." But to date I have presumed you are interested in the truth and not just simple little sound bites that fit your preconceptions. I could be wrong.
Posted by: nodebris
_______
What you call simpler I call ACCURATE. And you can try to rationalize this anyway you want but the FACT is if these firefighers were Black this test would not have been thrown out. So the firefighters RACE was the reason.. The city of New Haven didn't get people with the race THEY WANTED to pass so they threw the test out... Actually it is pretty simple, why can't you understand it???

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Let me save you the trouble, Jake. I screw men and I don't believe in God. If you think that's a weapon to use against me in these comments then (1) you take this blogging stuff WAY too seriously and (2) you are WAY out of touch with the Zeitgeist.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Whew! At least it seems as if "chrisfox8" has stopped posting my incorrect age. That guy seems to have an unhealthy obsession about me.

==

(*guffaw*)

How many times have you managed to work my homosexuality and atheism into comment sections where I'm not even posting?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm not "cheering" for that -- if Obama keeps going the way he is, there will no doubt be an economic collapse and increased inflation

==

You goopers have been screaming this crap for years. You said the economy would collapse under Clinton and instead we had sustained prosperity .. you guys always says that the Dems can't handle the economy and you're always wrong.

Nobody pays attention to Republicans anymore.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Pawlenty announces he won't seek re-election. Wonder what this means for his certifying Franken as US Senator?

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD

The DOW is always a leading indicator, jobs a lagging indicator.The growth in Unemployment levels has started to taper off but we likely won't start seeing unemployment coming down until after we see how 2009 Christmas sales turn out. Today housing and auto sales ticked up also good economic news. What should be worrisome however is the potential collapse of Ca's credit rating if they can't balance their budget and the potential of Ford defaulting next year. All is not well in the economy but in comparison to where we were just in December, when we were on the verge of total economic collapse, is remarkable and Obama and Geitner have done a tremendous job, so far. O's moment with Nancy Reagan today should silence even his most vociferous critics, which I once was."

as someone who knows nothing about economics or the stock market, I'm a bit skeptical as to the reliability of a stock market index in predicting job growth..

But you know, I don't really know anything.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 9:30 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD

The DOW is always a leading indicator, jobs a lagging indicator.The growth in Unemployment levels has started to taper off but we likely won't start seeing unemployment coming down until after we see how 2009 Christmas sales turn out. Today housing and auto sales ticked up also good economic news. What should be worrisome however is the potential collapse of Ca's credit rating if they can't balance their budget and the potential of Ford defaulting next year. All is not well in the economy but in comparison to where we were just in December, when we were on the verge of total economic collapse, is remarkable and Obama and Geitner have done a tremendous job, so far. O's moment with Nancy Reagan today should silence even his most vociferous critics, which I once was.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

"Sovine08 wrote: "I said the test was thrown out because the fire fighters were White."

It didn't get thrown out because white people performed well. That's totally normal in employment testing. Employment tests *typically* show adverse impact. Some extremely valid tests show *extreme* adverse impact. The fact that one group does better or worse than another isn't what sinks a test, because pretty much all the tests have this effect. What sinks the test is when the difference can't be shown to occur for a reason that has anything to do with the job.

It's a lot simpler to say "the test was thrown out because the fire fighters were White." But to date I have presumed you are interested in the truth and not just simple little sound bites that fit your preconceptions. I could be wrong.

Posted by: nodebris | June 2, 2009 8:17 PM"
__________
No, you got it right.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 2, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

sovine08 wrote: "Since when has ruling that we cannot discriminate on the basis of race makes someone activist??"

You're not very familiar with the ideology of your own party, are you?

Posted by: nodebris | June 2, 2009 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Sovine08 wrote: "I said the test was thrown out because the fire fighters were White."

It didn't get thrown out because white people performed well. That's totally normal in employment testing. Employment tests *typically* show adverse impact. Some extremely valid tests show *extreme* adverse impact. The fact that one group does better or worse than another isn't what sinks a test, because pretty much all the tests have this effect. What sinks the test is when the difference can't be shown to occur for a reason that has anything to do with the job.

It's a lot simpler to say "the test was thrown out because the fire fighters were White." But to date I have presumed you are interested in the truth and not just simple little sound bites that fit your preconceptions. I could be wrong.

Posted by: nodebris | June 2, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

"As for Matthews and Cohen, I don't watch cable news, so I can't comment on the former, but I find myself disagreeing with Cohen quite a bit."
__________
The Post markets Cohen as a progressive but, at least on civil rights and the War, he's really not. Late Hall of Fame journalist Carl Rowan once famously called him out as a "hatemonger" and years ago one of his columns (perceived to support discrimination by downtown DC businesses against blacks) prompted a city-wide boycott of the Post that was ultimately called off by radio personality Cathy Hughes. Google "Carl Rowan" and Cohen for the full story.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 2, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Whew! At least it seems as if "chrisfox8" has stopped posting my incorrect age. That guy seems to have an unhealthy obsession about me.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

SS shouldn't have apologized (if that's in fact what she did--unclear). Her point was pretty unremarkable: a wise Latina with a "richness of experience" would make "better" decisions than a white male who lacked that "richness of experience." Would, all other things being equal, someone with richer experiences make better judgments than someone lacking those experiences? If you have lived in a cave all your life, you will have a tough time being a good judge no matter how smart you are. No big deal. Viva Sonia. Viva beans, rice, and pigs feet. Viva BHO.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 2, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

"So far the DOW and even consumer confidence(5 straight up months) indicates that the economy is slowly turning around."

Problem is that jobs are still being lost. Yeah, the rate of job loss has been decreasing, but I doubt that's of much comfort to people who can't pay the bills. If this doesn't turn around, the DOW and all these other metrics will be meaningless. It doesn't mean that Obama will be blamed (non-Republicans seem to be very reasonable about their expectations), but they aren't going to be allayed by consumer confidence.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Yes, and only Tina Fey said: "I can see Russia from my house." Idiots who vote based only on SNL.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

"Chris Matthew's brother Jim is a R running for Pa Lt Governor. I am sure Chris has voted for him a time or two for state office, so your premise is incorrect."

Probably 90% of my impression of Chris Matthews is from Hardball sketches on Saturday Night Live. From what I remember, he would pick on Paul Begala quite a bit. This actually led me to believe that he was a Republican which I continued to believe until I heard he was considering running in the Democratic primary for the PA Senate spot.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

So, was she lying then, or is she lying now?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

"While I can see the confusion.. Taking it out of context made it worse.. Look at my original in FULL and you will see it was a response to your comment. And there even YOU KNEW I was talking about Matthews and Cohen agreeing the firefighters were right... (They were NOT agreeing Sotomayor was a bad pick.) And also the last sentence makes no sense "Forget the law politcally IT is a winner.." if I was talking about a person and not a case..."

Well, I'm not the one who thought you were saying that 70-80% didn't like who Obama picked. I was just saying that your wording was unclear.

But whatever, if there's misunderstanding either due to poor wording or poor reading, I say its ok for the original writer to clarify. We all get misinterpreted. Kind of like Sotomayor is getting misinterpreted due to her Latina woman comment due to her own bad word choice. Someone asks about it, she clarifies it, the "base" is mollified, we move on.

As for Matthews and Cohen, I don't watch cable news, so I can't comment on the former, but I find myself disagreeing with Cohen quite a bit. You can take any issue and you'll always find a couple of pundits who deviate from the orthodoxy. For example, I'm probably deviating from the Democratic orthodoxy when I say that the Latina woman comment was not taken out of context as she provided almost no context to that statement. (I'm no pundit, but you get the idea)

If I want to get a gauge on opinion on something, I'll usually scroll down the comments section of The Fix. Yeah, it skews a little liberal, but it's still good for a sense. You see a lot more defenders of Palin on here than McCain. A lot more defense of George Bush than Tim Pawlenty.

But if you're trying to be intellectually honest, then don't go cherry picking pundits that agree with you and then state their position as Democratic orthodoxy.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Did you see that Sen. "Leaky" Leahy asked her to "clarify" her wise Latina remark?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 7:45 PM
________
I did. And through Leahy she explained she will apply the law w/out any racial considerations. I think Feinstein also clarified the remark. In fact, in Sessions' interview of her today, he didn't even bother bringing it up. This bogus "wise Latina" narrative has finally punched itself out. Let it go the way of Reverend Wright and birth certificates.

Viva Sonia.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 2, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

Don't forget I said "terrorist attack" too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Were you also upset about the NYT spiking this story?

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/18/new-york-times-finally-admits

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

let me just leave it that your sentiments are AntiAmerican. The only way that the GOP wins if O is unable to clean up W's economy that was on the verge of a Hoover moment when he left office. What patriots. So far the DOW and even consumer confidence(5 straight up months) indicates that the economy is slowly turning around. I will guarantee you that when that happens the GOP will perversely take credit for that recovery or claim that it would have happened any way. You can count on that and I dare any of you neocons to post that comment in Nov 2010.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Did you see that Sen. "Leaky" Leahy asked her to "clarify" her wise Latina remark?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

"many Obama voters who change their vote if the economy doesn't turn around too."

jakeD we know that you are cheering for that. Fortunately, consumer confidence has risen dramatically since O has been in office as how the DOW. Sorry to rain on your parade and your antiAmerican sentiments.


Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 7:32 PM
________
Frankly, I think BHO will be just fine in 2012 even if the economy, which he has no control over, doesn't turn around. The GOP has no counterproposals on the table other than the stale tax-cuts-for-the-rich line. Also the GOP has no one to run against him. Newtron? Pawlenty? Romney (who couldn't win the GOP primary)? Piyush Jindal? Phalin? Don't think so.

But as you suggested, the econony IS coming around.

Viva BHO. Viva Sonia.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 2, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm not "cheering" for that -- if Obama keeps going the way he is, there will no doubt be an economic collapse and increased inflation -- same thing will happen if there's a terrorist attack after Obama keeps weakening national security.

Besides, didn't you say before that you really don't care what my opinions are?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

"many Obama voters who change their vote if the economy doesn't turn around too."

jakeD we know that you are cheering for that. Fortunately, consumer confidence has risen dramatically since O has been in office as how the DOW. Sorry to rain on your parade and your antiAmerican sentiments.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

"Morning Fix: GOP Faces Demographic Dilemma."

Ya think?

All of the GOP moderates, especially the two ME senators, are aghast at the direction of the GOP and openly acknowledge this "Southern Strategy" is producing a Southern-only party that can't compete for the Presidency.
____________
The Washington Post spiking the Marcus Epstein story?

Hey, the MSM has been obsessing for more than a week over Sonia's innocuous "wise Latina" remark.

But they have been strangely silent about prominent Buchanan/Tancredo protege Marcus Epstein pleading guilty to a hate-motivated assault of a black female passer-by, in which he called her the N-word.

If an AA BHO protege had karate-chopped a pale passerby and hollered a choice racial slur at her, the story would have been on Page One in the Post, and Fox News would have had all-day specials on it.

Why did the Post not cover his initial arrest, which happened MONTHS ago? And why did they not cover his recent guilty plea? Clearly, the Post is aware of the Marcus incident. What's going on????

Fortunately, the Washington Examiner (as well as HuffPo) covered the story today(link below):

http://washingtonindependent.com/45214/tancredo-buchanan-bruised-by-racist-karate-chop

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 2, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! You haven't been paying attention much. Everything from CHENEY coming out for gay marriage instead of Obama (there was a big Prop. 8 protest against The One while he was in California last time) to failing to prosecute Bush for war crimes, I think you are going to find many Obama voters who change their vote if the economy doesn't turn around too.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthew's brother Jim is a R running for Pa Lt Governor. I am sure Chris has voted for him a time or two for state office, so your premise is incorrect.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

A mother couldn't send her White kid to the school down the block because she was told they already had to many White kids going there..

==

No sympathy. Back when we had segregates schools the nonwhite schools always got less money and less everything.

When I was in school I walked over a mile every day. Her kid gets to talk a bus. So bloody what.

I think your Roberts/Alito quip makes you a troll more than someone who actually cares about some kid having to take a bus.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

How many of those groups -- in "particular his young, first-time voters -- will be thoroughly disenchanted with Obama by the time 2012 gets here?"

Not as long as GOP keeps haranguing about social issues like Gay Marriage, likely very very few, who's only complaints seem to be that he is is not supporting single payor healthcare.

TDP spending lots lots of money mnteng, surely you jest. TDP has no money. What I hear at local fundraising events, is when is some of our local fundraising money and some of that out of state money coming our way. White is a good campaigner and has a real shot but not without dnc help. The DNC has walked away from 4 straight US Texas Senate races and many here are getting really tired of that. Austin is a great place for our retirment and geographically a beautiful city.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness indeed!

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

No, sovine, I stated a generality about affirmative action, I don't care enough about the firefighter case to follow it. I consider "reverse discrimination" to be too rare and too unimportant to get wrapped around the axle over it, mostly it's something thrown up as part of the Southern Strategy to get the base all riled up, and since I'm not part of the GOP base I don't really care.
Posted by: chrisfox8
_____
Well the problem is they aren't that rare.. Just cases reaching the Supreme Court recently.. A White Girl denied entrance to the University of Michigan.. (There was a point system and she lost out because Blacks got 20 points just for being Black) A mother couldn't send her White kid to the school down the block because she was told they already had to many White kids going there.. and now Ricci. Affirmative action is going strong that's why we NEED to win these cases... Thank goodness for Roberts and Alito...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey my point about Matthews and Cohen is these guys have probably never voted for a Republican in [their] lives.

==

Well they'll have a lot of company in generations to come

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

"Wow take out of context much."

No, your wording was ambiguous. You said 70-80% disagree with Obama's pick. Any reasonable person could interpret that to mean they didn't like Obama's selection.

Posted by: DDAWD
______
While I can see the confusion.. Taking it out of context made it worse.. Look at my original in FULL and you will see it was a response to your comment. And there even YOU KNEW I was talking about Matthews and Cohen agreeing the firefighters were right... (They were NOT agreeing Sotomayor was a bad pick.) And also the last sentence makes no sense "Forget the law politcally IT is a winner.." if I was talking about a person and not a case...

"And people on the Left like Chris Matthews and Richard Cohen AGREE!!"
Well, that's enough to convince me on anything.I guess Republicans have yet to learn the concept of heterogeneity.
Posted by: DDAWD
_____
Hey my point about Matthews and Cohen is these guys have probably never voted for a Republican in there lives.. they worship at the feet of Obama.. yet they disagree with Obama's pick to the Supreme Court. If they do you can bet 70 to 80% of Americans do. Forget the law.. politically it is a winner for Republicans...


Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Sorry DD but no, I turned off the TV for the last time when Reagan was in office

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"So how you like getting YOUR chain pulled, Jake?

Posted by: chrisfox8"

What do YOU think? Don't tell me you've never met a person who was a wh0re for attention whether it was good or bad. I'm sure you've at least seen a Girls Gone Wild ad, right?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

I'll bet the TDP spends a good chunk of change on the D candidate for KBH's seat, whether it is White or Sharp.

Moving away from the hurricanes, huh?

Posted by: mnteng | June 2, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

As long as they sit out the election, that's acceptable too.

==

That's a LOT more your worry than mine. How many teabaggers are gonna show up to elect a mormon?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

As long as they sit out the election, that's acceptable too.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

How many of those groups -- in particular his young, first-time voters -- will be thoroughly disenchanted with Obama by the time 2012 gets here?

==

Disenchanted enough to vote for Romney, or Palin? Not too damned many. Not enough to matter.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I'd rather you just ignore me, like DDAWD suggested.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Try Wikipedia next time before you spout off.

==

Oh, the irony

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

So how you like getting YOUR chain pulled, Jake?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

How many of those groups -- in particular his young, first-time voters -- will be thoroughly disenchanted with Obama by the time 2012 gets here?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Clinton lost Texas by 5-6% points.
The problem is that the DNC has totally written off Texas including in US Senate races. They take our money gladly and not a cent is returned for our local races even with the so called 50 state strategy. We should have a strong US Senate candidate for Hutchinson's seat and its about time SOME effort is given by the DNC to change things. If we can win Senate seats in South Dakota, Montana and Lousiana, why not in Texas? Likely all DNC resources will be sent to win an unlikely Fla senate race.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"Good riddance"? His son and wife were the ones killed, not him. Gerry Spence handled Weaver's defense, pro bono, and argued successfully that Weaver's actions were justifiable as self-defense. The judge dismissed two counts after hearing prosecution witness testimony. The jury acquitted Weaver of all remaining charges except two, one of which the judge set aside. Weaver was found guilty on only one count, failure to appear, for which he was fined $10,000 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The reason he failed to appear was due to the fact that he was officially told the court case was on the 20th March when in fact it was on the 20th February. So, he was credited with time served plus an additional three months, and was then released.

In August 1995, the federal government avoided trial on a civil lawsuit filed by the Weavers, by awarding the three surviving daughters $1,000,000 each and Randy Weaver $100,000 over the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver.

Try Wikipedia next time before you spout off.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Ask Randy Weaver whether the ATF and FBI or Native Americans are more dangerous.

==

Weaver? Fundie Nutjob. Good riddance. David Koresh too.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

These were 2 significant findings of that PEW poll that will effect states like Texas, Az and Florida in upcoming gubenatorial elections:
1. 66% of Hispanics supported O

2. and "Without a doubt, the overwhelming backing of younger voters was a critical factor in Obama's victory, according to an analysis of National Election Pool exit polls that were provided by National Public Radio. Obama drew two-thirds (66%) of the vote among those younger than age 30. This age group was Kerry's strongest four years ago, but he drew a much narrower 54% majority"

The likelihood of GenY voters who supported O in 2008 to follow that pattern in future elections has a high correlation and losing the youth vote and the Hispanic vote by large margins will create major problems for the GOP going forward. That presumes that local D candidates can cash in on the O success.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

If that abortionist had been allowed to "carry heat in church" maybe he wouldn't be dead right now.

==

Great reasoning, Jake. Half the church would be dead. You morons think everyone having guns would make things better? Bloody idiot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"Republican efforts to recruit candidates from every walk of life and register voters in states like New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida are absolutely critical," said Diaz. "Our messengers across the country must reflect the concerns of their communities, and have the tools and support necessary to achieve success."

Except that he is really saying that the recruits are to be to the Current republican Party. He doesn't even HINT that the republicans no longer seek the will of the sizable majority.

All the recruiting in the world just brings more sheep to the slaughterhouse unless they can teach them to say something other than Bah bah less government bah bah lower taxes bah bah strong on defense bah bah right to life.

And unless they wake up to current economic reality they are headed to fringe party status a whole lot faster than likity split if Obama has any luck with the economy at all.

In OHIO, Kasich has decided that he will run against the State Income Tax, meaning that either Ohio gets back into the mess Gilligan got it out of or we won't be able to afford two state troopers and simultaneously one community college.

But he at least does know how to call people names: Strickland, according to him, is "A caretaker".

Odds on him getting as many votes as Ken Blackwell? Especially if the economy begins to turn around?

So go ahead, GOP, recruit and register. keep your twenty percent active.

And look over your shoulder, because the American reform party might just rise again, or else some other more center right Party will be born.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 2, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Ask Randy Weaver whether the ATF and FBI or Native Americans are more dangerous.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"Still no reply to my mention this morning about DNC meeting in my new home town Austin. That is truly good news for us, the Others in the D Party."

Yeah, I wonder how out of reach Texas would be in 2012. One thing is that we presumably aren't going to have a Presidential candidate from there. Another is that the rural areas are shrinking while the Austin and Houston areas are growing pretty quickly. Furthermore, the Hispanic presence is growing. These factors led to victories in New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado in 2008. If trends keep going as they are, Texas might be in play. I know that a lot of that is wishful thinking, but Texas is the only Republican stronghold. If they have to play a lot of defense there, they are in big trouble. In 2008, McCain beat Obama by 10%. If this shrinks by two or three points by 2012, then I think we can say Texas is in play.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

If that abortionist had been allowed to "carry heat in church" maybe he wouldn't be dead right now.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Uh, back in Patrick Henry's time America was a lawless wilderness. In our time there is a lot more danger from idiots allowed to have guns than from local natives.

You're not too bright, Jake

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I'm so sure that "penis envy" was Patrick Henry and George Mason's primary concern re: the Second Amendment. Another great piece of "logic" chrisfox8.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD I have had my differences with you but you are absolutely correct this time.

Still no reply to my mention this morning about DNC meeting in my new home town Austin. That is truly good news for us, the Others in the D Party.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

can we stop making every thread a discussion on jaked?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Well as far as I'm concerned the whole RKBA thing about men with little dicks.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Observer44:

Thanks.

Anyone else:

Here's one more data set to discuss re: the actual thread topic whether the "GOP Faces Demographic Dilemma" http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1023/exit-poll-analysis-2008

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

jakeD after reading your so called Independent Whack Job's platform, I really don't care what your opinions are. Hope others here bother to see who you are truly associated with.

==

Don't worry, he's harmless. His claim to afdfiliation with that silly party is about as serious as a tenth-grader who comes to school in a T-shirt with a picture of an eeevil snake coming out of the eye socket of a grinning skull. Shock value to get attention.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox:
it actually uses the language Absolute 2nd Amendment Right which precludes the federal ban on machine guns and rocket launchers. I added that reference since it so clearly references the phrase ABSOLUTE RIGHT. Just wanted to clarify that but urge others to read the link and understand their platform and where jakeD is truly coming from. Absolute Right would also suggest the right to carry heat in churches, government buildings, libraries, places we all know scream for absolute gun rights.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

JakeD replied:

Thanks for that answer ("no" would have sufficed). Follow-up question: does your faction of the GOP believe that the State should prosecute REAL murder of born humans?

I thought my explanation would answer at least some of the questions likely to follow: "Is your faction of the GOP 'pro-life'?", but you want one-word responses. Oh, well. Then here goes:

Yes.

Posted by: Observer44 | June 2, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

O.K., then, see you later, leichtman : )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

jakeD after reading your so called Independent Whack Job's platform, I really don't care what your opinions are. Hope others here bother to see who you are truly associated with.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

So Jake's party is in favor of mental patients being able to buy machine guns in airport vending machines. Oh goody, now there's a serious political force.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

my reference was to Jake's 5:33 pm post not observer44 who's post sounds rational

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

Are you asking me that question?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I'll bet if Hillary broke out of the pack, what's left of the Republicans would help elect her..

Posted by: newbeeboy

==

After years and years of Hillary-hating? Yeah, sure

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

and we care because the R party is so dominent?

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

leapin, thanks for your opinion, but its not for you to define MY political views, much less my party affiliation. I'm a registered Republican. Until 2008, I had never voted for a Democrat for President in my life, although I voted in every election since 1972.

I voted for Obama, mostly out of disgust for where the regime of Bush the Lesser took our country (and the GOP) over the last eight years... and because electing McCain in 2008 would have been interpreted as endorsement of more of the same by the factions that waylaid us... the Neocons (rebranded Wilsonian Democrats, credulous evangelicals who bought into the quasi-religious mythology of the former, and those who deserted the Southern Democrats over questions of race).

If the Republican Party is ever going to be a national voice again, it will have to pitch a wider tent than "support Israel no matter what" and "Life begins at conception". And it will have to shake off the consequences of Bush Inc playing no attention at all to what Cheney's buddies in the energy sector were up to, or to what the Wizards of Wall Street were doing with other people's money.

Posted by: Observer44 | June 2, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

1. Yes.
2. Of course (but keep in mind that I was simply proving that 10% Democrats and 44% Independents are not, statistically speaking, outliers).

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

does your faction of the GOP believe that the State should prosecute REAL murder of born humans?

==

Another of Jake's idiotic questions. "Anyone else?"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Oh pish Jake you lie in almost every post and even when you try to get your facts straight you don't. Get used to it, we know you're lying about pretty much everything. And yes if 10% of Dems voted for McGoofy, they're outliers. The racist vote wasn't enough to derail him, now he's president, and will be again in 2013, so get used to that too.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:
just out of curiosity you do understand that:
1. Hillary is our Secy of State;
2. That Obama won 4 conservative southern and border states including Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Again I hope the GOP is paying close attention to your savy political strategy.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I'll bet if Hillary broke out of the pack, what's left of the Republicans would help elect her..

Posted by: newbeeboy | June 2, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Observer44:

Thanks for that answer ("no" would have sufficed). Follow-up question: does your faction of the GOP believe that the State should prosecute REAL murder of born humans?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Yes, that is where I'm coming from, and I've never been "caught" in a lie because I don't lie. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, my faction of the Republican Party believes in limited government, rule of law, personal liberty and reponsibility, freedom of conscience, ALL of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment as well as the First, the Eighth as well as the Fifth and Sixth. I don't believe abortion is, or even should be, a litmus test for membership in the Republican Party... I don't agree with you about abortion.

Even among Republicans, there is no universal stand on abortion questions... because we don't agree on all the facts. One's view can depend on whether we define every fetus as a legal "person", or at what point in a pregnancy we do; or on whether we believe that the rights of this person-to-be override those of its mother-to-be, and if so, at what point. And then there is the matter of whether we feel that the matter should be decided by force, that we have the right to assert control over someone else, and compel them to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is what passing a law is, after all, use of the government monopoly of force to compel someone to submit to the particular rule enacted.

I don't believe that a blastocyst is, from the moment of conception, a "person" with, not only equal rights to the body of the woman in which conception occurs, but superior rights to hers. Even if I thought, in the abstract, that this blob of protoplasm might have "rights", I would not agree that anyone else BESIDES the mother-to-be in whose body it resides, should presume to speak for it... not myself, not you, and certainly not the government.

Posted by: Observer44 | June 2, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

O.K., here we go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_and_liberal_support_for_John_McCain_in_2008

According to exit polls on Election Day, 10% of those who identified themselves as Democrats voted for John McCain -- he got 44% of the Independents -- that's more than just "some outliers".

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Bill and Secy of State Clinton voted for McCain says jakeD
You have finally proven that you are truly a whack job.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Uh, it's a safe bet that you're lying, Jake. Get used to the fact that most of us reading your posts will presume them to be lies. You've been caught lying too many times. You'll support your fellow GOP trolls first and being honest is a distant last. As for the number of Dems who voted McCain, what does it matter? He lost big.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Jake proudly claims to be a registered member of the California Independent Party (read some of their positions and learn that it is far from independent). Here are some of their right wing positions posted at their web site:


"Freedom from "Liberalism"
Freed from the lawless oppression of Liberal rule, we may then compassionately and justly use our energy and ingenuity to provide for ourselves and our families. We will then establish truly free and responsible enterprise and reassert the basic human right to property."

The Protection of Life, and the Duties and Rights of Families
We believe in protecting all human life. We maintain that all humans are persons from the beginning of their biological development..

"Marriage Between a Man and a Woman
We insist that marriage is between a man and a woman and assert the role of the law in establishing and reinforcing the mutual rights and obligations of that God-ordained contract."

The Individual and Common Defense
We assert the "absolute" (machine guns and rocket launchers included), concurrent Second Amendment .

Our Great Pro-Life Constitution
The Republic established by our Constitution is the greatest of all pro-life institutions. In the first place, it protects our lives from the impositions of foreign nations and internal disorder. Our Constitution in its Fifth Amendment also forbids the government to take life—or liberty or property—unjustly. The Fourteenth amendment requires all States to apply all the protections they provide for life equally to all visitors or citizens, and to all born or unborn persons within the territories governed by their laws."

and this My Friends is where jakeD is coming from.

http://www.aipca.org/

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Observer44 -

Nice try. You are no more a Republican than Obama.

Posted by: leapin | June 2, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman voted for McCain (I'd bet that Bill and Hillary Clinton voted for McCain too). Does anyone else have the exit poll numbers handy still on how many Democrats / Independents are estimated to have voted for McCain?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Given the Obama method of grandly professing the opposite of the reality that will soon follow (most ethical administration nominees in history lead to Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Solis, etc.; no desire to interfere in the private sector means near nationalization of the banking, car, and soon health-care industries; commitment to public campaign financing equals first candidate to reject it in the general election; strong desire for fiscal sobriety translates into a $1.7 trillion annual deficit; Bush shredding the Constitution means adoption of Bush's wiretaps, email intercepts, Predator attacks, Patriot Act, Iraq plan, renditions, etc., and on and on), the tell-tale sign of the final U.S. break with Israel will be a dramatic Obama hope-and-change declaration that "our historic commitment to Israel will remain unchanged."

When Obama talks, we know exactly what follows . . .

Posted by: leapin | June 2, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I read it as "disagreed with Obama's pick on the firefighter case".

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

In the meantime, whether you met them or not, SOME Clinton Democrats did vote for McCain

==

Drop 300 million people on ANY bell curve and you'll get some outliers. That doesn't mean they're significant. You have no sense, Jake.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Your fault sovine, if you meant "80% disagreed with Sotomayor about the firefighters," you shouldn't have said "disagrees with Obama's pick." Everyone read it as "disagreed with picking Sotomayor"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

In the meantime, whether you met them or not, SOME Clinton Democrats did vote for McCain:

http://blog.pennlive.com/elections/2008/11/some_clinton_democrats_voted_f.html

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

If anyone thought that Hillary supporters would vote for Palin because she has a vagina too, they miscalculated on several fronts, both the shallowness of the electorate and on Palin herself. As soon as she opened her mouth it was clear that choosing her for any position of power was wantonly irresponsible, just another of McCain's impulsive lurches.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"Wow take out of context much."

No, your wording was ambiguous. You said 70-80% disagree with Obama's pick. Any reasonable person could interpret that to mean they didn't like Obama's selection.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

I'm glad you saved all my posts (I've been registered with the American Independent Party since 1968, so that's not a "recent" conversion). If you ever come up with a question you'd like to ask about past or recent posts, fire away.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

JakeD again I don't know what planet you are on but as someone who was actively involved in the Clinton campaign at the state caucus in March 2008, I know zero Clinton supporters who praised Palin and used her selection to vote for McCain, in fact I was surprised how that so backfired on McCain. I have gone back and spoken with many who like me might have crossed over but were so sicken by her choice that they voted for Obama. That includes not only the Clinton supporters I know but many young registered Rs. JakeD your views about polictis are precisely why Rs got trounced in Nov. If you are not a registered R, which by your posts here I sincerely doubt, I would strong urge that you do so, become a R activist and pass on to them some of your sage advice. This country desperately needs more Rs thinking precisely like you. Thank you for your service to this country.
Again I saved your proPalin rants here from last summer, so your whining and sudden conversion that you are an independent proves zero. We know better.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Palin-Jindal? Good grief! If THAT is really the best we can do, I'll be voting for Obama again in 2012.

Posted by: Observer44 | June 2, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

No, sovine, I stated a generality about affirmative action, I don't care enough about the firefighter case to follow it. I consider "reverse discrimination" to be too rare and too unimportant to get wrapped around the axle over it, mostly it's something thrown up as part of the Southern Strategy to get the base all riled up, and since I'm not part of the GOP base I don't really care.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm bisexual, Jake, and of course I'm an atheist, I have a brain.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Observer44:

Is your version of the Republican Party pro-life?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

yet they disagree with Obama's pick to the Supreme Court. If they do you can bet 70 to 80% of Americans do.
==
What planet are you posting from?!?
Posted by: chrisfox8
____
Wow take out of context much.. I was talking about the Ricci case and you make it sound like it was Sotomayor. In context it means 70% to 80% percent agree with the firefighters.. Heck before you said YOU AGREE with the firefighters in this case...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

If "everything" I post is false: then "chrisfox8" is a homosexual atheist.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

What a surprise! After a couple of generations of too many Republicans giving every impression they didn't much like black folks and "mezicans", we've come to a point where a sizable majority of black folks and Hispanics are returning the favor... they don't much like the Republican Party.

This is just one more venue in which principled Republicans are going to have to work like the devil to get the party back from the brink of destruction where the Neocons and corporatists led it (and the country). GM is NOT "America", but just one company, and Bechtel, AIG, Lehman Brothers, ADM and Haliburton certainly are not "America". Nor are Boeing and Lockheed "America". Most aren't America, and in large measure, not even American. All that is good for Boeing, GM, or for Exxon, is not necessarily what is good for the country...nor vice versa...the first loyalty of the corporate management is to itself, and then to the stockholders (though they pretend its the other way around)...loyalty to any country, including this one, is a distant third at best. Yet the lobbyists of these large corporations had (and still have) way too much influence in Washington DC. This isn't new (Eisenhower cogently warned us... and he would know)... but it reached a blatant apogee under the administration of Bush the Lesser because that lot was a bunch of Neocons, more interested in foreign adventures than in our own economic life... they ran up the credit card... rather than actually looking carefully at the financial system and their own responibilities, they applied their own previously accepted economic aphorisms like religious mantras, and ignored the consequences.

They didn't try to expand representation of the Party to all who believe in liberty, because they were busy diminishing liberty as a result of their their increased concern for more security, and in pursuit of the policy of aggressive war that they had rushed into.

They ignored the growing disparity in wealth distribution encouraged by their policies, retreating behind the mantra that the Republican Party is opposed to the redistribution of wealth, or any regulation of private enterprise. That won no hearts and minds among the poor, or even the middle class, under current pressures.

We, Republicans who hope for a future for our country, and our party, are going to have to get our own act together... return the Party to the principles it claims to stand for... before it can win the approval of all the people who, on the basis of those principles, really should support it.

Posted by: Observer44 | June 2, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh quit it Jake you only talk about AIP to create an impression of being an individual, which you are not. You carry water for the GOP, you recite GOP talking points like a Barbie doll with built-in recordings, and you haven't offered one solitary point to distinguish yourself from the GOP other than to toss in a mention of AIP every so often. And you lie every time you post, so anyone familiar with you assumed from the get-go that everything you post is false.

Korean war, Stanford, wife, all lies.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Well, you asked about my "party" which is why I was clarifying that you obviously are not referring to the GOP. Independents (and some Democrats) did, in fact, vote for McCain-Palin. That should not be shocking to anyone who has posted at WaPo for any length of time. Perhaps you can re-state your question?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

JakeD I saved many of your proPalin posts here from last year.
Maybe in your world ranting about how qualified Palin was to be V.P. makes you an independent.
Those who know your months of right wing posts here have not fallen off the turnip truck. You can claim anything you want on a blog site, we all know that, but those of us who have been at this site for a long time know better.
Yea right, your posting that Palin is brilliant, Obama dirt, makes you an independent.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

So how did Palin work out for McCain? A brief rise that just gave him farther to fall, and allowed him to fall faster, and fall he did. The first truly decisive presidential loss since Dole.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

yeah you're quite the iconoclast, Jake, voting for a party that gets fewer votes than a rounding error. Not enough votes naionally to fill a high school auditorium, but fewer votes for the GOP is fine with me

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

My "party" is Independent. You were saying?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

wmc418:

That's not MY 70-80% : )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

as I recall it was JakeD who constantly harangued here during the primary and election and got in constant arguments with me about how how he was so so sure that the selection of Palin was going to sway all of the Hillary supporters to vote for McCain in Nov.
Hey JakeD how did that work out for your party? I truly hope they are listening to all of your sage advice.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"Forget the law ... politically it is a winner for Republican" worked for Bush v. Gore ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Polling numbers for the Sotomayor choice have been released by Gallup.
A quick search engine question will get anyone interested the results.
The poll states that Sotomayor polls higher than John Roberts or Sam Alito when the picks were first announced.
The numbers are Sotomayor (given as one third) Roberts 25% and Alito at 18%.
Over half of those polled said Sotomayor should be approved by the Senate.
Jake's 70-80% dissapproval of Sotomayor checks out to be a number pulled from the nether regions.

Posted by: wmc418 | June 2, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

So newbeeboy why don't you just eat Alpo? It'd be cheaper still.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats have shown the way.. just get some no name politician, that no one has ever even heard of, put a team of vampires and hyenas to work.. spinning a web of deceit.. and win with them..

Doesn't matter who the front man is.. it's all in the presentation.. like when you take the wifey to the French restaurant, you would rather eat at the burger joint, but they don't present lousy tasting food in such a glorious atmosphere...

Posted by: newbeeboy | June 2, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

the point is that Jake and the other gooper trolls hate Obama and regard as illegitimate anyone who doesn't. Who cares. They're out of power for generations to come/.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"Hey my point about Matthews and Cohen is these guys have probably never voted for a Republican in there lives.. they worship at the feet of Obama.. yet they disagree with Obama's pick to the Supreme Court. If they do you can bet 70 to 80% of Americans do. Forget the law.. politically it is a winner for Republicans..."

Ok, but let me warn you...its a pretty lousy point.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I didn't "lie" about Chris Matthews (or my age). Maybe next time ...

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

and your point is?

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

hahahhaha forget it, Jake, I don't forget numbers. You lied, and if anyone were to bother chasing his tail to prove it you would just lie again. You always lie, and you're not worth anyone's time

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews — who, in the past, has both cried over an Obama speech and compared him to Jesus — described exactly what happens to him when Obama speaks:

"I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/chris-matthews-i-felt-t_n_86449.html

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

yet they disagree with Obama's pick to the Supreme Court. If they do you can bet 70 to 80% of Americans do.

==

What planet are you posting from?!?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

No link to something that you claim I've posted "many times"? Instead of lying, shut up and go away.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"yet they disagree with Obama's pick to the Supreme Court. If they do you can bet 70 to 80% of Americans do. Forget the law.. politically it is a winner for Republicans... "

70-80% disagree with this pick? On what planet?
Last election 62% of Hispanics voted D, keep it up and the numbers will rise to 70%. Please please keep up your delusional thinking so that once and for all we can turn Texas around. You and Rush are absolutely right, its a political whiner.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

they worship at the feet of Obama

==

this crap gets old

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"Hey my point about Matthews and Cohen is these guys have probably never voted for a Republican in there lives.. they worship at the feet of Obama.. yet they disagree with Obama's pick to the Supreme Court. If they do you can bet 70 to 80% of Americans do. Forget the law.. politically it is a winner for Republicans... Posted by: sovine08 "

Links please or what you are posting is your fantasy...

Posted by: ModerateVoter | June 2, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Ah but correct in your eyes or mine. Who establishes "correct"? You?
Posted by: ModerateVoter
____
Right is right and fair is fair. Unless you can give me a good reason why Frank Ricci should not be promoted.. the right, fair and correct thing to do is promote him...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"And people on the Left like Chris Matthews and Richard Cohen AGREE!!"
Well, that's enough to convince me on anything.I guess Republicans have yet to learn the concept of heterogeneity.
Posted by: DDAWD
_____
Hey my point about Matthews and Cohen is these guys have probably never voted for a Republican in there lives.. they worship at the feet of Obama.. yet they disagree with Obama's pick to the Supreme Court. If they do you can bet 70 to 80% of Americans do. Forget the law.. politically it is a winner for Republicans...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Then it should be easy to link to a quote of mine (just as I did for that lie by "drindl").

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Please stop lying, Jake, you've given your age as 72 many times.

Instead of lying, just shut up and go away.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I've never posted that I am 72. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone else?"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

What's to discuss, Jake? You say you're 72, you say you served in the Army in Korea. Since that war ended 56 years ago, that would make you 16 at the time, meaning you were 12 or 13 when you enlisted. Ergo, you lied, and you got caught.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"As I figured. Judicial activism is just fine as long as you like it.
Posted by: chrisfox8
____
No judicial activism is just fine as long as it has the correct verdict..."

Ah but correct in your eyes or mine. Who establishes "correct"? You?

Posted by: ModerateVoter | June 2, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to discuss my age or Army service during the Korean War, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Please oh YES let the GOP run Romney or Jeendal or (*guffaw*) Sarah Palin in 2012. Now THAT would be a brazen act of suicide, and no doubt they would convince each other they had a shot.

Not even the "base" would be enthused about any of them.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Note that Jake is pretending he doesn't even see any posts about his service-in-Korea lie. Those posts just "aren't there" in his world.

Caught again, Jake, and still you whimper when everyone ignores your stupid "questions."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

sovine08:

Good luck with that one -- it's better to just ignore them -- or laugh out loud when they claim that WE "lie" ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

As I figured. Judicial activism is just fine as long as you like it.
Posted by: chrisfox8
____
No judicial activism is just fine as long as it has the correct verdict...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

No, it's not 'wide open' in NY. Paterson is incompetent and everyone knows it. There will be no problems, hewill step downor he will be forced out but he will not run. Cuomo will, and he will iwn.
Posted by: drindl
____
Paterson will not just step down.. Heck Biden was just in town calling him "Your current and future governor..." And yeah Cuomo might beat him.. but this could be a very nasty primary. Don't ever underestimate Democrats ability to mess things up...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

That doesn't matter. They are in the entertainment business and both are far too cozy with republican politicians. Matthews is known for fawning on McCain and Mitt Romney.
Posted by: drindl
_____
Huh??? Matthews is a long time long standing Democrat. "He served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. He campaigned for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania's 4th congressional district in 1974, but ended the loser. He was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration. Matthews later worked six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration." If anything he fawned over Obama.. Sorry but if you want to be taken seriously you have to at least try not to make stuff up...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

If it's not MITT Romney, I would have no problem voting for Palin-Jindal : )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Nobody cares about Piyoosh Jindal, the allegedly educated man who professes to disbelieve in evolution. If you think he has a shot at one of the top slots you're seriously demented

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

But if it is it will be because of the 5 Conservatives on the court.. and if that means they have to be activist.. then I'm good with it..

==

As I figured. Judicial activism is just fine as long as you like it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

So sovine now you're demanding that she be an "activist judge." You fail the consistency test again.
Posted by: chrisfox8
____
Since when has ruling that we cannot discriminate on the basis of race makes someone activist?? Why this case bothers me is because it should be a no brainer. Firefighters took this test in good faith.. passed it yet were denied promotions because no Black firefighters passed.. something they certainly had NO control over. This should be a 9-0 decision in the Supreme Court. I have yet to hear a good argument why Frank Ricci should not be promoted. All you guys say is the law say's he shouldn't be.. Then the law is screwed up and needs to be changed. But if it is it will be because of the 5 Conservatives on the court.. and if that means they have to be activist.. then I'm good with it..

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to discuss bob's [JINDAL?] trajectory, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The pendulum is still swinging away from the GOP, Jake. Republican identification continues to drop, despite, or more likely because of, all the mouthbreathing about Obama.

It won't swing back in your lifetime.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic, I would argue that the faces of the GOP are those who will be elected next time around -- the pendulum will swing back -- that's guaranteed.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Nobody is interested in engaging with you, Jake, you've been caught lying way too many times. And atop that, you're stupid.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Too bad you girls refused to answer my questions to you, way back when, or I would have been more than glad to answer your questions to me posted at 2:36 PM, 2:38 PM, and 2:40 PM.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else has a question about anything I've posted on topic (as long as you answer my questions to you) please let me know.

==

What does it take to get it through your head that nobody gives a crap about you?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

i am female, btw. And no I don't deny calling CC a toady. why would I?

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

lying about what jaked? what are you raving about?

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

1) Of course, "drindl" thinks that our own gracious host, Mr. Cillizza is a "right-wing toadie" as well ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 2:05 PM

2) Like EVERYTHING else jaked says, that's a lie too [Emphasis Added].

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 2:15 PM

3) (STEEL TRAP SNAPPED SHUT) Proving I didn't lie
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/white-house-cheat-sheet-republ-2.html?hpid=topnews

If anyone else has a question about anything I've posted on topic (as long as you answer my questions to you) please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Save it, moron, he was agreeing that you lied about serving in Korea, not denying his own oft-posted words.

Better stay anonymous, Jake, there are a lot of vets who don't take kindly to booger-eater chickenhawks claiming they served in the military

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I don't expect an apology or even retraction from you for being caught LYING RED-HANDED! To boot, you called ME the liar about it.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

maybe steel trap is a good analogy, like in tightly closed.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't apologize for that, nor do i take it back. But as far as your 'mind', 'steel trap' certainly isn't what comes to mind.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

A mind like a steel trap...rusted shut.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | June 2, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"... and you reveal yourself to be nothing but a toady for republicans, mr. cilliza ..."

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 2:00 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/white-house-cheat-sheet-republ-2.html?hpid=topnews

(I still have a mind like a steel trap ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

more popcorn


"But in an interview with POLITICO, Manuel Miranda – who orchestrated the letter – went much farther, saying that Mitch McConnell should “consider resigning” as Senate minority leader if he can’t take a harder line on President Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.

Miranda accused McConnell of being “limp-wristed” and “a little bit tone deaf” when it comes to judicial nominees.

Miranda, now the chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference, served as counsel to McConnell’s predecessor, then-Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist. He left that job in 2004 amid allegations that he improperly accessed thousands of memos and emails from Democratic staffers – circumstances McConnell’s supporters recalled as they pushed back hard against Miranda’s arguments Monday."

For those of you keeping track at home, the conservative spokesperson is now using homophobic language to fight for the right to call a Hispanic woman a racist and to filibuster her appointment. The great conservative outreach continues unabated.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Like everything else jaked says, that's a lie too.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

How did you serve in the Army in Korea when you were sixteen at the time that war ended, Jake?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

... and you can have him

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Of course, "drindl" thinks that our own gracious host, Mr. Cillizza is a "right-wing toadie" as well ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! Cohen is one of those "right-wingers" then who is in favor of abortion and same-sex marriage, agrees with former Vice President Al Gore on global warming, and says that "Israel itself is a mistake". Not to mention that affair he had with Kati Marton (the wife of ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings) and in 1998, Cohen was involved in a dispute with editorial aide Devon Spurgeon that was ultimately mediated by Washington Post management [details hushed up]. Cohen repotedly asked Ms. Sturgeon questions about "casual sex", told her to "stand up and turn around", and gave her the "silent treatment" for three weeks. Cohen contended that "It was a personality dispute at an office, but it had nothing to do with sexual harassment as the term applies today." Post management concluded that Ms. Spurgeon had been subjected to a "hostile working environment" but not to "sexual harassment" and that Cohen was guilty of "inappropriate behavior."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cohen_(Washington_Post_columnist)#Accusations_of_inappropriate_behavior

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Don't know anything about Matthews Jake but as for Cohen, he's all yours.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

'For the record, Chris Matthews and Richard Cohen are registered DEMOCRATS '

That doesn't matter. They are in the entertainment business and both are far too cozy with republican politicians. Matthews is known for fawning on McCain and Mitt Romney.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

FWIW, Chris Matthews's brother, Jim, is a Republican in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Jim Matthews was the unsuccessful 2006 Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania as Lynn Swann's running mate. I note that Wikipedia has an item of interest:

"In 2007, Matthews made a third, successful bid for the commission. Early in the campaign, Tom Ellis were opposed for the nomination by State Representative Kate M. Harper, former Lower Merion School Board member Jill Govberg, Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor and former State Rep. Melissa Murphy Weber. The challengers charged that Matthews and Ellis could not keep the county government in GOP hands in the upcoming election. Matthews countered that he could indeed win given his experience in county government and his name recognition. Running on his own, Matthews narrowly captured the party endorsement along with Castor.

Matthews and Castor faced off with former Democratic Congressman Joe Hoeffel and incumbent Ruth Damsker in the general election. Matthews was attacked for support from Bob Asher and a lobbying contract awarded to party chairman Ken Davis. Matthews raised a campaign account separate from Castor and counterattacked Hoeffel and Damsker with charges that they would raise property taxes.

On election day, Matthews took third place, enough to remain on the board. He and Castor will serve along with Hoeffel. Matthews is Chairman of the Board of Commissioners following a power sharing agreement with Hoeffel. Matthews was formally censured by the Montgomery County Republican Committee (MCRC) on November 17, 2008 for his deal with Hoeffel with the new MCRC Chairman Robert Kerns declaring that Jim Matthews was "no longer a Republican".

That being said, Chris Matthews is a true-blue DEMOCRAT who got a "tingle" up his leg re: Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"And people on the Left like Chris Matthews and Richard Cohen AGREE!!"

Well, that's enough to convince me on anything.

I guess Republicans have yet to learn the concept of heterogeneity.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

fitzchristopher:

How about "de jure" leader then (although I heard the RNC took away some of his fiscal responsibilities)?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

For the record, Chris Matthews and Richard Cohen are registered DEMOCRATS (for Gawd's sake, Matthews served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie, he campaigned as a Democrat for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania's 4th congressional district in 1974 -- Matthews was also a speechwriter during the Carter administration and later worked six years as a top aide to Speaker Tip O'Neill).

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

No, it's not 'wide open' in NY. Paterson is incompetent and everyone knows it. There will be no problems, hewill step downor he will be forced out but he will not run. Cuomo will, and he will iwn.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Who cares what you'd argue, Jake? You never get your facts straight and you're a moron.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I am a New Yorker, moron. I am right now looking out my window at the Empire State Building. I was here on 9/11. Iknow LOTS of New Yorkers. and i can GUARANTEE you that Guiliani will never get elected to dogcatcher here.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Michael Steele is certainly NOT the de facto leader of the Republican Party. One of the old white guys at the top of the page is. Steele is bright, articulate, and capable, but as of right now, the majority of the members of his party do not look to him for leadership. He is a figurehead...you misunderstand the term de facto.

Posted by: fitzchristopher | June 2, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"And people on the Left like Chris Matthews and Richard Cohen AGREE!! "

These people are rightwingers, not left.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I would argue that the bob's trajectory is already returning to the middle.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

You won't live long enough to see the pendulum swing back, Jake. I'm almost 20 years younger than you and I won't live to see it either, and I'm pretty happy about that.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"Quick -- think of the three faces of the Republican party". I would argue that the faces of those GOP are those who will be elected next time around. The pendulum will swing back.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

So sovine now you're demanding that she be an "activist judge." You fail the consistency test again.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

But Sotomayor ruled on their right to reject the test as the basis of promotion, which I don't agree with, but it was legal, and it that's what she ruled on.
Posted by: chrisfox8
____
So chrisfox8 are you saying she didn't have a choice??? That she had to rule against the firefighters??? Doesn't sound very Democratic to me. Besides did every judge vote the same way as her? If not, are you saying those judges did something illegal? All I know is the Supreme Court has a CHOICE. And I don't feel if she was on the court now she would change her mind. Do you think she would? I'm glad we agree the firefighers are right but what I don't understand is why if you think the firefighters were right you support someone who goes against that. They are the judges.. don't they decide what is legal and what is not?

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"If anyone would like to dignify my idiotic tangential questions with an actual response, let me know. Anyone. Please.

Please!! PLEASE!!! SOMEONE TALK TO ME!!"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

No.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

shut up, JakeD

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani win? Hilarious. You have no idea how much he is hated out here. The man is a sexoholic and a grifter.

Posted by: drindl
___
Well you out there aren't voting. New Yorkers are.. and he is still looked up to in NY. And sexoholic? Like we care about that in NY. Besides apparentally you don't know Paterson.. he's fooled around as much as Rudy. I'd go so far to say Paterson has no chance against Rudy.. Dems even KNOW that here and want Andrew Cuomo to run.. But there's a race issue if Dems force out the first Black govenor.. As I said.. it's wide open in NY..

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

hey sovine why don't you take a break and go get laid or something, you're hysterical. You can come back and talk about the firemen when you calm down.

My opinion is that the more qualified should get the job, that to give it to a less qualified firefighter to balance a racial quota is wrong. It's only when qualified people are rejected on the basis of race that there is a problem, EITHER way.

But Sotomayor ruled on their right to reject the test as the basis of promotion, which I don't agree with, but it was legal, and it that's what she ruled on.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic for a moment, in addition to Cheney, Limbaugh and Gingrich, the following Republicans have been mentioned on this very thread:

Weaver
Diaz
Mehlman
Swann
Steele
Blackwell
Rubio
Frazier
Crist
Montana
Christie
Lonegan
DeLay
Bailey Hutchison
Perry
Ensign
Coleman

Giuliani
Pataki
White firefighters in New Haven (I have to guess at least two of them are Republicans)
Bush
Palin
Jindal
Lincoln
Hannity
Rove
Specter (until this year)
Stevenson
O'Reilly
Levin
Savage
Curly
Larry
Moe
Dawson
Anuzis
Buchanan (up until 1999)
Powell (hopefully not for too much longer)
Miranda
McConnell
Sargent
Frist
Romney
Conservative Republicans
Thinking Republicans, otherwise called Moderates
Log Cabin Republicans
Bunker
scrivener50
McCain
King of Zouk
Reagan
Colbert
Cantor
Coulter
Castle, and
Pawlenty

That's over 50. Not to mention the latest thread (McHugh, Gates, LaHood, Huntsman Jr., and Gregg ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"No it is simply TRUE.. If some of these fire fighers were Black they ALL would have been promoted. Race was the factor the city used to throw the test out... FACT!!!"

This is very different from saying that people were denied a promotion because they were white.
Posted by: DDAWD
_____
Very different?? I said the test was thrown out because the fire fighters were White. You agree if the fire fighters were Black they would have been promoted.. It seems to me their race was exactly the reason they weren't promoted...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

And as DDAWD points out, you are demanding that she engage in exactly the sort of "judicial activism" that your party likes to scream and rant about. Your position does not even have the virtue of consistency.
Posted by: nodebris
____
No I'm asking her to do WHAT IS RIGHT!!! Seperate but equal use to be the law of the land.. but it was WRONG! Judges did the RIGHT thing and ended it. Not promoting these firefighters because of their race is just as WRONG!!! The 5 Conservative judges we expect will do the RIGHT thing and side with the firefighters. This should be a 9-0 vote but the 4 Liberal judges are expected to vote against the firefighters. This isn't about "judicial activism" it's about RIGHT AND WRONG!!! Frank Ricci deserves to be promoted.. PERIOD!!! And people on the Left like Chris Matthews and Richard Cohen AGREE!! Sotomayor and any other judge who sided with New Haven didn't do the right thing in this case... Oh and politically it's a disaster for the Left and those who support race based Affirmative Action..

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"No it is simply TRUE.. If some of these fire fighers were Black they ALL would have been promoted. Race was the factor the city used to throw the test out... FACT!!!"

This is very different from saying that people were denied a promotion because they were white.

Also, all the other stuff that is wrong with what you've said.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

And while it is very early Rudy has a huge lead over Paterson in the polls.

==

Hope springs eternal.

Giuliani's 15 minutes are up too. In addition to all the things DD listed, the man is a one-dimensional clown and he's gone as far as he could coasting on 9/11. If he's your best shot ...

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The problem with trying to explain legal cases to wingers like sovine is that they will never be sophsiticated enough to understand what the facts of the case actually are.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

No it is simply TRUE.. If some of these fire fighers were Black they ALL would have been promoted. Race was the factor the city used to throw the test out... FACT!!!

==

Stop hyperventilating.

And go read about the case. It's distasteful and you'd probably be surprised to learn that there are plenty of us who think it was wrong. It was, however, legal and that's what Sotomayor ruled on.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani win? Hilarious. You have no idea how much he is hated out here.

After everyone found out that he made an already-hit once terrorist target into the city central command post/illicit lovenest, that he had had two mistresses on the city payroll at once, that he had ordered combustible fuel stored in said terrorist targets, and oh btw, never got around to replacing the malfunctioning radios-- which killed god knows how many firemen - oh and declaring ground zero 'safe' and therby endangering and making sick the many brave individuals who went down to help -- well, let's just say, persona non grata.

The man is a sexoholic and a grifter.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"There is a case before the Supreme Court whewe White firefighters were denied promotion because they are WHITE."

Sovine08, that's simply not true.
Posted by: nodebris
____
No it is simply TRUE.. If some of these fire fighers were Black they ALL would have been promoted. Race was the factor the city used to throw the test out... FACT!!!

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Blow up in their faces? Oh yes.

I walked past an electronics store last night and Univision was on, featuring Newt Gingrich translated into Spanish. They're listening, they're hearing all the hate speech.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the democratic governor of NY is in trouble. But we didn't elect him, and he is, frankly, not up to it. But don't worry, the only credible candidates statewide are all Dems and there's not a chance we won't take it next election.
Posted by: drindl
_____
Wouldn't be to sure about that. Rumor has it Rudy Giuliani will run for Gov.. And while it is very early Rudy has a huge lead over Paterson in the polls. hey Paterson might not even end up the nominee for the Dems.. but in a State where Pataki won 3 times as Gov and Rudy twice as Mayor of NYC.. never say never

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"The Democratic govenors of both NY and NJ and in trouble

==

As long as voters who see a need for party balance achieve it at the state level, it's fine with me. Don't see much sign of Republicans making any national gains anywhere, quite the contrary."

These are the types of people that the Republicans should be reaching out to. The ones who can appeal to blue-staters, but these are the ones who are getting shunned by the Republican party.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"There is a case before the Supreme Court whewe White firefighters were denied promotion because they are WHITE."

Sovine08, that's simply not true. You are are really doing your best to avoid all the inconvenient facts that corrode this simple little narrative of yours. Your statement is such a huge mischaracterization of the facts -- which are easily discoverable, you have been directed to them -- that one can't help but feel that you are willfully misrepresenting them.

And as DDAWD points out, you are demanding that she engage in exactly the sort of "judicial activism" that your party likes to scream and rant about. Your position does not even have the virtue of consistency.

Posted by: nodebris | June 2, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

This will all blow up in the Republicans faces.

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 2, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

As long as voters who see a need for party balance achieve it at the state level, it's fine with me. Don't see much sign of Republicans making any national gains anywhere, quite the contrary.
Posted by: chrisfox8
_____
National gains are made at the state level because elections are done by each state separately.. The Presidental election not to mention Senate seats and House seats. You might not care if Republicans start winning governor or local races.. but it will be a good sign for Republicans nationally if they do.

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

jfern03 wrote:
I could go on and on and on, and you can refute any of this, but the verdict of the american voter is in: The GOP sucks!!!
-----------------------------------------
One way to convince someone of a lie is to present it as a premise and intellectually embarrassing whoever attacks the premise (aka liberalism). You dealt in your replies with label after label and generalization after generalization. So when Bush wins twice, Democrats don't suck but when they win, backed with a snapshot opinion poll, 40 years of Democrat rule is arrogantly announced. I just wonder what will happen if Democrats lose an election. How will these Obamatrons live? What will they do with their rage? (shrugs)

Posted by: NoWeCant | June 2, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Just for any pro-abortion fanatics out there, who always argue as if every aborted foetus were healthy, here's the procol of the murdered doctor. I urge you to look up the websites of some of these conditions and see just how horribly wrong a pregnancy can go, and see if you can still defend forcing a woman to bear a botched and grotesque caricature of a human that won't even live.


Anencephaly
Trisomy 13
Trisomy 18
Trisomy 21
Polycystic kidney disease
Spina bifida
Hydrocephalus
Potter's syndrome
Lethal dwarfism
Holoprosencephaly
Anterior and posterior encephalocele
Non-immune hydrops

The cached version of Dr. Tiller's admission criteria shows the following:

Admission Criteria
In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you
to our center. In addition, we need your
genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic
information regarding your pregnancy.
Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy
terminations in such situations as
anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, spina
bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter's syndrome,
lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele,
non-immune hydrops, and a variety of
other very significant abnormalities.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Hell, even North Carolina went blue last November. NORTH CAROLINA."

I think North Carolina is progressing the way that Virginia has been going. In terms of land mass, Virginia is pretty red, but the Northern part of VA has been rapidly increasing in population and that area is very blue. North Carolina is kind of the same. A lot of red landmass, but the triangle area (Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Durham) is rapidly growing and is bluer than the rest of the state.

I'm hesitant to call NC a blue state. If the election were close, there would probably have been a recount there.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

If anyone wants a list of posters whom I will respond to because they have answered my questions in a civil manner, let me know.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the democratic governor of NY is in trouble. But we didn't elect him, and he is, frankly, not up to it. But don't worry, the only credible candidates statewide are all Dems and there's not a chance we won't take it next election.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

drindl wrote: "I'd say this boy Roeder pretty much shared the belief system of a lot of commenters, and rightwingers in general."

Well said, drindl.

Anyone else?

Posted by: nodebris | June 2, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans have race based politics??? There is a case before the Supreme Court whewe White firefighters were denied promotion because they are WHITE. It was the Liberal leaders of New Haven who denied promotion on the basis of race. It was Liberal judge Sotomayor who approved that decision.. and it will most likely be the 4 Liberal members of the Supreme Court that will also say that test should be thrown out. It's Republicans who say RACE SHOULDN'T MATTER and those firefighters took and passed that test fair and square and deserve to be promoted. And you can argue the law all you want but this case is a LOSER for supporters of Affrimative action and you know it..."

Dude, the law is the law. That's how Title VII works. If you don't like the law, you get LEGISLATORS to change it, not the courts. Remember how Republicans used to pretend to hate judicial activism?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have race based politics??? There is a case before the Supreme Court whewe White firefighters were denied promotion because they are WHITE.

==

Yes, Republicans have race-based politics, which is why they only win in the most racist states now.

Hell, even North Carolina went blue last November. NORTH CAROLINA.

Is the Democratic party entirely free of the racist taint? Of course not. But it's motes and beams, and if you think you can elevate that wholly questionable case (where a dyslexic struggled to pass the test and still didn't get the promotion) into trumping the Southern Strategy, then you're not only dishonest but delusional.

Hang on to your hopes though. Everyone should have a dream.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Gee, maybe it wasn't a good idea for Ronnie to launch his first campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, to commemorate the slaughter of civil rights workers. Maybe that was too subtle, hmm....The die was cast. Meese and all the others helped fulfill the Republican priority of enlisting Bubba to back up the country club set. Worked like a charm for a long, long time, but now Joe Sixpack is himself living in a more diverse world and on top of that, realizes that the Republicans had zero interest in his welfare. Dems always flirt with risk in upholding any old-school Nanny Statism and blind pro-abortionism, feeding into a values perception, rightly or wrongly, but let's face it: Bush and all the people who propped him up, instructed him, or voted for him, bear responsibility for many major messes and it's natural that people would steer away from such a ruinous party.

Posted by: Plutonium57 | June 2, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm not saying that any Democrat can beat any Republican. My point is that Republicans are swimming against the current with their racially based politics. Posted by: DDAWD
_____
Republicans have race based politics??? There is a case before the Supreme Court whewe White firefighters were denied promotion because they are WHITE. It was the Liberal leaders of New Haven who denied promotion on the basis of race. It was Liberal judge Sotomayor who approved that decision.. and it will most likely be the 4 Liberal members of the Supreme Court that will also say that test should be thrown out. It's Republicans who say RACE SHOULDN'T MATTER and those firefighters took and passed that test fair and square and deserve to be promoted. And you can argue the law all you want but this case is a LOSER for supporters of Affrimative action and you know it...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

The biggest problem the nation faces now is

REPUBLICAN'Ts

Posted by: lunetrick | June 2, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse


Quick -- think of the three faces of the Republican party: Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich immediately come to mind.
____
These are the 3 he picks? NONE of them are currently elected Republicans. Meanwhile NO mention Michael Steele the
Republican National Committee Chairman? Or Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal??? Quick think of three faces of the Democratic party: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright immediately come to mind. Wow I guess that means Democrats are in trouble huh??? Chris this was stupid even for you...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse
__________________________________________

Unfortunately sovine08, Chris is right.

Although none of these GOP members are elected officials they are the GOP names that most people know. And with good reason.

Over the years too many Republican politicians have been happy for these people to lead the attacks against everything that the GOP doesn't stand for. Every time the right-wing commentators have attacked "liberal" ideas they have had GOP members sitting beside them saying that they are correct. Is it any wonder that people now associate these faces as the ideas the GOP expunges?

The only way the GOP will change these ideas and perceptions will be when enough GOP politicians (and other members) are willing to stand up and tell these guys to shut up. Unfortunately, even when they try to moderate what is said the party leaders then end up APOLOGIZING to the loud mouths. Not much leadership there, is it?

A true Republican leader will be one willing to stand up to the OLD Guard. Without apologizing. Until that happens the Republicans will always be associated with Cheney, Rush and Newt.

Posted by: alysheba_3 | June 2, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic govenors of both NY and NJ and in trouble

==

As long as voters who see a need for party balance achieve it at the state level, it's fine with me. Don't see much sign of Republicans making any national gains anywhere, quite the contrary.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Listen: all political parties, even Grand Ol' ones, have a natural lifespan. They rise as necessary and fall when obsolete. The GOP rose under Lincoln when the Party stood against slavery and secession, saving the Union and creating the modern United States of America from the ashes of the Civil War. We owe the Party of Lincoln a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid.

But, as institutions tend to do, the GOP lost its way. For no other purpose than electoral power, the Party chucked its former commitment to Lincoln's vision of America and adopted the Southern Strategy. It worked for awhile, albeit at the great expense of the Party's principles. But it was this dance with the devil that brought them where they are now: a party of old white racist men and the unfortunate and powerless pawns in their game.

I think we all believed that the principled Republican voices would bring the Party back to greatness. But those voices have left the Party of their own accord or been purged outright. Pity the self-identified Republican that speaks against the racist, Christianist hegemony of the modern GOP. That person will find that these are now the foundational principles - the core identity - of the depraved philosophy of a dying party.

So, leave this ugly corpse to the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Roves, and Gingriches of this world. Those hulking dinosaurs need a familiar place to gather, far away from the rest of the world, away from nagging reality, cruel reminders of their abject failure ... nothing less than an elephant graveyard.

Posted by: RicardoMalocchio | June 2, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

sovine08 writes
"The Democratic govenors of both NY and NJ and in trouble.. If Republicans can win there they can win anywhere."

Of course they can. However, the Republicans that can win there are called RINOs everywhere else. Look at the PA senate race. Specter could have skated to reelection as a Republican, but he was RINOd out of the party - the next senator will be either Specter as a Dem, or Sestak.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 2, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

You're an idiot if you think Obama's anti-gay marriage stance is anything other than political expediency.

Posted by: DDAWD

==

Like Obama is going to veto an overturn of the DoMA.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed by this constant and ferocious obssession with nancy pelosi and harry reid. Can any sane person explain to me what this is all about? They're bland. Most americans have no idea who they even are, and yet the GOP is so fixated on them they can't stop talking about them.

What is hilarious is that they are running ads in local races bashing Pelosi instead of talking up their own candidates and local people are scratching their heads and going, who?

That's what happens when your elected officials start 'thinking' like your average deranged winger.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Actually I want the economy to get better and there not be another attack. Unlike Democrats who wanted us to fail in Iraq.

==

That's not only libelous, it's just plain stupid and not worth dignifying with a serious response.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Quick, which one of those three has recently come out in favor of gay marriage?
Posted by: DDAWD
_____
That would be Cheney... BTW what's Obama's position on Gay Marriage??"

You're an idiot if you think Obama's anti-gay marriage stance is anything other than political expediency.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"Nate argues that it is not that the GOP has become more white and/or conservative"

I don't think the GOP could possibly become MORE white.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The Incredible Shrinking Party..


"The Republican Party of Marathon County has stripped its spokesman of his title less than three months after he wrote a column critical of conservative talk radio star Rush Limbaugh.
Kevin Stevenson said he believes his March guest column in the Wausau Daily Herald criticizing Limbaugh turned local party members against him.

"They felt I was too moderate in what I was speaking and printing," he said."

Khmer Rush strikes again.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

If anyone would like to dignify my idiotic tangential questions with an actual response, let me know. Anyone. Please.

Please!! PLEASE!!! SOMEONE TALK TO ME!!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Hope springs eternal, I guess. What exactly is going to stimulate this return to the GOP? What will they come up with? More of that "magic of the marketplace" crap? A resurgence of middle-class racism? Some unheralded GOP candidate with an actual new idea? Nothing like that anywhere in sight. You're just daydreaming, and hoping we get attacked again and the economcy collapses.
Posted by: chrisfox8
_____
Actually I want the economy to get better and there not be another attack. Unlike Democrats who wanted us to fail in Iraq. But do you see Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Rangel and Frank??? Democrats are not immune from their own IDIOTS!!! Tou guys win an election and think what you can never lose one again??? The Democratic govenors of both NY and NJ and in trouble.. If Republicans can win there they can win anywhere...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Four others: Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin and Savage. These guys continually espouse "Reagan conservatism", that the Republican party should return to the ideas of an elderly white president from 25 years ago. This political philosophy does not appeal to voters in their 20's, 30's and even 40's not just because it's not forward thinking, but also because it isn't clear how Reagan conservatism would address the nation's current issues.

There certainly is no voice for the Republican party (yet) truly leading the party by clearly articulating what it stands for and how it will address the country's issues now and in the future. The party is
stagnant.

It is impossible for the party to move on when it's talk radio leaders tear down anyone who disagrees with them.

Posted by: jrosco3 | June 2, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes, let's talk about Roeder. He called himself a Patriot... belonged to a group of tax deadbeats who called themselves Patriots. Rich, isn't it? people who want to get rid of government calling themselves patriots? They have no sense of irony, though so they don't know how humorous that is... so I'd say this boy Roeder pretty much shared the belief system of a lot of commenters, and rightwingers in general.

"But Roeder's violent right-wing extremism extends beyond the issue of abortion. In April 1996, amid anxiety over the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Roeder was stopped by police after a motorist reported seeing a car with a license plate reading: "Sovereign -- Private Property -- Immunity Declared at Law --Non Commercial American."

("Sovereign citizens" claim to be unaccountable to the federal government, deriving certain rights under English common law. It's been a favored legal strategy of various violent right-wing extremists, including white supremacists."

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"It is a look at Michael Dukakis' demographics breakdown within the context of the makeup of the 2008 electorate. The conclusion was that Dukakis would win if the 1988 election were to be held 20 years later
_____
Well I guess that didn't help Kerry 4 years ago. Democrats have to realize Obama beat a 72 year old guy who said the economy was not his strong suit.."

Well, I'm not saying that any Democrat can beat any Republican. My point is that Republicans are swimming against the current with their racially based politics. Obviously other factors come into play, but when one of the biggest drubbings in US history can be eliminated simply through demographic shifts, that's a problem for Republicans. Yeah, they can still find ways to win, but in a high stakes game like presidential politics, you don't want to have these disadvantages.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Good point, drindl.

Posted by: nodebris | June 2, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

jaked is a jaked parody..

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

The 3 Stooges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Curly,Larry and Moe

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 2, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"DDAWD

So to you it is just a coincidence?"

Is what just a coincidence?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm . . . if no conservatives are willing to address Scott Roeder, I guess I will get to characterize their position for them. It's deeply dishonest to do so, of course, but I am running a jaked parody today.

Posted by: nodebris | June 2, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Now Obama faces another test, right on the heels of North Korea's successful nuclear test: Netanyahu caves to the settler movement and refuses to halt new construction of West Bank settlements. Even the construction companies that build the damned things have more power than the Israeli government and can stare down the Prime Minister.

But Obama is showing no signs of backing down, and the pro-Israeli lobby is stymied by Obama's equally unrelenting call on the Muslim world and the Palestinians to step up to the plate too. They're more trustworthy than Israel in any case.

And it can't be lost on that messianic thug Netanyahoo that, as with GM, when Obama issues a deadline he's not kidding.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

sovine08 writes
"Ummm your right he wasn't elected in a general election BUT was ELECTED by Republicans to be their chairman... This is how it finished..
After the fifth round, Steele held a ten vote lead over Katon Dawson, with 79 votes, and Saul Anuzis dropped out. After the sixth vote, he won the chairmanship of the RNC over Dawson by a vote of 91 to 77."


Thanks for making my point. Mr Steele was elected to lead the RNC by about 160 party insiders - not even by republicans at large, of which there are millions, nationwide.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 2, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The last link DDAWD posts from fivethirtyeight.com bears more consideration. Nate argues that it is not that the GOP has become more white and/or conservative, but that the American population has become less so. The meat of the argument is that of natural selection -- adapt to the changing environment (American demographics) or die. Somewhat ironic given the far right's anti-evolution stance.

Bsimon1's point about the youth vote is also very well taken.

Posted by: mnteng | June 2, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

It deranges them badly to have a black man as president. To have an hispanic woman as a supreme court justice -- well, that will just send them over the top.

The xenophobia against hispanic people [tied in as it is with the hatred of immigrants] will convince the morons that they cannot let her succeed. It will cause them so so thoroughly and publicly trash her it will mark the end of the period in which they are ever able to win a national election again. And they won't be able to stop themselves.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

chrisfox8, For the record, I have a very select group whose questions I will entertain, generally limited to those who are either totally unfamiliar with me, or who always agree with me. That way I get to sound smarter and I am not confronted by the occasional unfortunate lapses of fact or logic on my part. It is the height of rudeness to point out my "errors," after all.

Next canard? Anyone else?

Posted by: nodebris | June 2, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

As Diaz said; "Our messengers across the country must reflect the concerns of their communities,...."

The problem with the GOP is that it is so fractured that the candidate who will win a GOP primary is NOT electable in a general election. The Republican candidates are so out of touch with their community, at large. They continually only spew the red meat talking points that seems to only get the hard-core base excited but seems to turn off everyone else.

The Republicans will not win general elections until they are willing to piss off the base to appeal to more moderate sensabilities.

Posted by: VAreader | June 2, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

nodebris: please post a list of the people who have attained legitimacy by answering your questions in a civil manner. We can't respond at all until we know if we're vetted.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Air America played a clip of some right-wing radio host bursting a blood vessel as he read out a string of dire predictions, Sotomayor's nomination as part of a nefarious plot to

"nationalize the banks-uh!"

"nationalize the automakers-uh!"

"legitimize abortion-uh!"

He was completely hysterical.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Hey Republicans: I was reading the back story on Scott Roeder, and I he seems to strongly support all the positions I hear you constantly spout. Care to state how you differ from him? Do you disagree with murdering a doctor in his church? If so, is your rejection with caveats, or without exception? What do you think it is about your party that stirs up domestic terrorism of this sort?

Discuss.

(I'm pretending I'm jaked and get to set the ground rules for discussion. Annoying and pretentious, isn't it?)

Posted by: nodebris | June 2, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I'm LOL. Go over to the rightwing website Politico -- the whole home page is devoted to trashing sotomeyer. Commit political suicide, people! Go for it.

Pass the popcorn.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

As if confirming the bad impression of the GOP given by the article's pictures, jaked et al. step into further demonstrate why the GOP and the conservative movement generally are in such steep decline.

These vile, narrow-minded bigoted liars are the only ones left defending the party.

If we had an audible to go with the pictures, the data, and their comments, it would be the amplified sound of flushing.

Posted by: nodebris | June 2, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

And to think, Buchanan as an opponent of the thinking-money crowd is one of the saner people still identifying as GOP. But he has that racist streak that keeps on giving to the Democrats.

Should have stayed on Crossfire, Pat.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"Yesterday, C-SPAN invited right-wing pundit Pat Buchanan onto its hour-long Washington Journal show. In recent days, Buchanan has made headlines for spewing hatred toward Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Yesterday, he continued, mocking the fact that she was still struggling with English while in college:

BUCHANAN: Well I, again in that Saturday piece, she went to Princeton. She graduated first in her class it said. But she herself said she read, basically classic children’s books to read and learn the language and she read basic English grammars and she got help from tutors. I think that, I mean if you’re, frankly if you’re in college and you’re working on Pinocchio or on the troll under the bridge, I don’t think that’s college work."

Nowhere did the article say that all of this was Sotomayor’s “college work.” But Buchanan has been doing all he can in the past week to make it seem like Sotomayor is unqualified and simply an affirmative action nominee. Keep it up, and watch how badly you lose next election. It's inevitable, because you all just can't help yourselves.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Not the best for President maybe.. But I believe both Palin and Jindal could win Senate seats in their respected states.. Cut into the Democratic lead a little. Not a big fan of Steele but my point is Chris picked people who were NOT elected Republicans and called them the face of the Republican party.. He didn't pick Steele because he didn't fit Chris's message. Well that's not really fair now is it???

==

Complain about his choices all you like, these three are the out-in-front voices and faces of the GOP. When Steele as head of the GOP has to grovel to a radio clown, you're not going to get far saying he's the leader. Gingrich is frantically trying to rise from the ashes and Cheney goes after respected and dedicated public servants like Colin Powell.

You think Steele's tokenism is lost on anyone? You think Jindal will ever rise above joke-butt status? You think Palin in the Senate (*guffaw*) would be anything but a stale joke? What's she gonna do, speak in tongues at the lectern?

Get serious.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans and the Democrats have issues with party members.The republicans have cornered themselves because of individuals like Rush,Newt and Cheney.Democrtas fair no better with the likes of Nacy,Reid.The republicans have done themselves a disservice by allowing blow hards like Rush to become the face of their party.They, the republicans should of put a muzzle on Rush long ago.The other option is called him out for what he is,an entertainer who is not and does not represent the ideals of the republican party.They could mention that he does have conservatives views that mirror the republican party but his anger, his racism and all his previous racist remarks are not tolerated in the republican party.But they didn't and now they can't escape the branding that the republican party are a bunch of closed minded bigots.Once Rush became the face of the party or the voice, the republicans closed their tent on new voters, young voters.The problem is not that the republican party in general are racists, bad radicals or lunatics.Many republicans are great americans who love their country, Colin Powell is an example and many others but the fringe part of the party has cornered the party.Rush has a popular radio show and all republicans must pay homage to him but it did not help them in the last election.So why go to someone who has had drug problems, has cheated on his wife and is a bigot to pay homage too?
Until the republican distance themselves from people like Rush, Newt and the rest of the angry faces that seem to hamper the republican from moving forward, the party will continue to suffer.
The Democrtas have the power, the new base of voters and the senate and the house.And soon they will have the first Latina on the Supreme court and what do the voices of the republican party do,they attack her. They do not attack her record which is impressive by all standards but due to a comment made 7-8 years ago.They called her a racist, which her record does not show.karl Rove almost called her stupid or did from what I hear.So now Americans are seeing the hardcore voices of the republican party making personal attacks on a someone.This might go over well with the fringe parts of party but Americans in general do not see this as progressive.This alone will help the deomcrats stay in power, its easier to maintain power than to gain it.

Posted by: Realistic2 | June 2, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

heh heh heh if they're your best shot then you're in REAL trouble. Compared to those mediocrites the three stooges above are the soul of competence and reputability.
Jindal's rebuttal to Obama took him off the national stage, Palin's 15 minutes are up except to the sort of voter who stores a pack of Marlboro in his undershirt sleeve, and Steele? The guy who grovels to Rush? Posted by: chrisfox8
_____
Not the best for President maybe.. But I believe both Palin and Jindal could win Senate seats in their respected states.. Cut into the Democratic lead a little. Not a big fan of Steele but my point is Chris picked people who were NOT elected Republicans and called them the face of the Republican party.. He didn't pick Steele because he didn't fit Chris's message. Well that's not really fair now is it???

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Lotta pressure by the wingers determined to kill hte republican party through ideological purity to further alienate hispanic voters by filibustering sotomeyor -- go for it people. Go for it. FILIBUSTER!

"Right-wing activist Manuel Mirdanda coordinated a letter that will be delivered to Senate Republicans today from “more than 145 conservatives” calling for a filibuster of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Going further than the letter, Miranda told Politico that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) should “consider resigning” his leadership role if he can’t “take a harder line” on Sotomayor. In 2004, Miranda struck a slightly different tone, calling filibustering judicial nominees “unprecedented, unconstitutional.”

As Greg Sargent notes, as an aide to then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) in 2004, Miranda was caught “hacking into the computers of Senate [Democrats] and downloading thousands of documents relating to the strategies of [Democratic] Senators on judicial nominations.” Miranda resigned and now runs Third Branch Conference, “a coalition of conservatives focused on judges.”

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Yes, as someone mentioned, there's another face of the party - Scott Roeder. All you have to do is look at the rightwingers racist comments that appear here every day and it tells the whole story of the doom of the right, writ large.

"And those who elevate latina-supremists to the supreme court, bigotry accusations are at best an attempt to negate their own guilt."

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Face it this country isn't full of Democrats it is full of Obamacrats. 2010 will be interesting to see if Republicans gain ground.. I think they will...

==

Hope springs eternal, I guess. What exactly is going to stimulate this return to the GOP? What will they come up with? More of that "magic of the marketplace" crap? A resurgence of middle-class racism? Some unheralded GOP candidate with an actual new idea?

Nothing like that anywhere in sight. You're just daydreaming, and hoping we get attacked again and the economcy collapses.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Is the GOP fixated on three people who are not even on the DNC radar, let lone considered relevant to what the Democrates want? Granted all three had their day in the Sun, but the Dems quickly realized that Jesse and Al could not speak for the party. As far a Jeremiah Wright goes, he has never been considered a spokesperson for the Democratic Party. He came to light in the media because of a few controversial sermons, but that is hardly considered as speaking for the entire Democratic party.Come on, I'm an independent and if someone asked me who comes to mind when I think of the Democratic Party its Reid, Pelosi and Obama. You must have been sleeping under a rock to come up with those old war horses.
Posted by: Amused1
____
Ummm I was being sarcastic making a point that Chris picked the three most far right Conservatives to represent the Republican party.. when one will never run again, one never has and never will run and the last one probably won't run. Meanwhile yesterday he talked about Romney being the leading Republican for 2012 and today quoting Steele... BTW Obama is the only guy of the three you picked that looks good and has a high approval rating. Pelosi and Reid couldn't win a National ANYTHING!!! Face it this country isn't full of Democrats it is full of Obamacrats. 2010 will be interesting to see if Republicans gain ground.. I think they will...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chris couldn't you have found a more recent picture of Rush, showing how grotesquely fat he is now? That one is at least ten years old.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele praises Judge Sonia Sotomayor for her "remarkable" personal story but insists that his party will pursue several avenues of "appropriate questions" about her legal background. Among those acceptable lines of questioning, according to Steele, are Sotomayor's comments at Duke in 2005 about the proper role of the courts in legislating, the president's argument for "empathy" in a justice, and Sotomayor's "courtroom temperament." Left unsaid but clearly present in Steele's oped is that personal attacks on Sotomayor -- some of which have already been launched by conservatives -- are not acceptable. While Steele is the de facto leader of the GOP, this will be an interesting test case: will the party fall in line behind him?"

Absolutely not. That's why they're doomed. They are too full of hate and racism to change, and they deserve the party to wither, as it will. Lookk at the 'charges' against Sotomeyor. Barely veiled racism right there. The 'temperament issue" is the idea that she has 'hot Latin temperament', isn't it? And the absurdist 'empathy' imbroglio is all about the white male fear that she will go easier on 'her own people.'

No wonder hispanics and blacks and everyone else who isn't a log IQ white male are fleeing from this hate cult. Look at the ugly withered old white faces at the top of this page. These are the hideous faces of savage racism and hate, the face of the republican party today.

Posted by: drindl | June 2, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The only demographic trend that matters is this: the GOP cannot appeal to its remaining Base without alienating and repelling everyone else. The two are irreconcilable. They could have seen it coming but they only pay attention to each other.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

No We can't:

It's over for a good long while. It doesn't matter what links you want to take anyone to or how hard you want to fight the label.

The republicans are about the rich getting richer, the poor poorer, a gun vending machine at every corner in america, rampant corruption at every level of government and industry ...and about stupid, useless wars and military contracting.

GOP has been the best government money could buy (off), but the party, literally, is over. America is the better for it.

GM went doen because they bought off the GOP for decades, which worked hard to kill any changes to the auto industry.

Health insurance is a catastrophe because of insurance and industry paid the GOP to thwart any and all attempts to get with it.

I could go on and on and on, and you can refute any of this, but the verdict of the american voter is in: The GOP sucks!!!

Don't believe me? stay tuned for the next few election cycles.

As the GOP shrinks down to nothing, they will likely start recruiting groups that their message appeals to, like the KKK and white supremacists. A match made in heaven for the present day GOP.

Posted by: jfern03 | June 2, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

So far in these postings, the far left wing extremist supporters of the Democrat Party, the supposed party of moderates and inclusion, have maligned the following:

men
women
Jews
Mormons
Christians
whites
blacks
fat people
people with chronic diseases
attractive people
ugly people
rich people
poor people

You've left other non-whites, skinny people as well as Muslims, Hispanics and Asians.

They want to be included as well so please be considerate of them and shoot some vitriol, aggression and hatred their way.

Posted by: VaPatriot | June 2, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Quick, which one of those three has recently come out in favor of gay marriage?
Posted by: DDAWD
_____
That would be Cheney... BTW what's Obama's position on Gay Marriage??

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Minorities gravitate to dependency. White people gravitate to independence.

==

hahahhahahah naaah nothing racist there.

what a moron

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Its about time that the DNC has finally decided to pay attention to Texas politics. If mark is out there perhaps we can join forces to help Bill White's campaign for US Senate. Bill White is admired by Houstonians across party lines, was State party chair and will be well financed by the Houston business community in his run for US Senate. Kudos to Governor Kaine.

Posted by: leichtman | June 2, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

My first 3 guesses:

1. Conservative Republicas
2. Thinking Republicans, otherwise called Moderates.
3. Log Cabin Republicans,

Posted by: KHMJr | June 2, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 10:10 AM three faces of the Democratic party: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright immediately come to mind. Wow I guess that means Democrats are in trouble huh???
* * * * * * * *

Is the GOP fixated on three people who are not even on the DNC radar, let lone considered relevant to what the Democrates want? Granted all three had their day in the Sun, but the Dems quickly realized that Jesse and Al could not speak for the party. As far a Jeremiah Wright goes, he has never been considered a spokesperson for the Democratic Party. He came to light in the media because of a few controversial sermons, but that is hardly considered as speaking for the entire Democratic party.

Come on, I'm an independent and if someone asked me who comes to mind when I think of the Democratic Party its Reid, Pelosi and Obama. You must have been sleeping under a rock to come up with those old war horses.

In the meantime GOP diehards continue repeating the talking points of three people who are not officially appointed, or elected and you wonder why the Indies and Moderate Dems keep shaking our heads. Look the Dems learned that they needed to put the Sharptons and the Jacksons out to pasture - you need to learn to do the same thing if the GOP is ever going to regain its seat as the opposition party of relevance.

Posted by: Amused1 | June 2, 2009 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile NO mention Michael Steele the
Republican National Committee Chairman? Or Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal???

==

heh heh heh if they're your best shot then you're in REAL trouble. Compared to those mediocrites the three stooges above are the soul of competence and reputability.

Jindal's rebuttal to Obama took him off the national stage, Palin's 15 minutes are up except to the sort of voter who stores a pack of Marlboro in his undershirt sleeve, and Steele? The guy who grovels to Rush?

Don't quit your day job.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

PSSSTT-- Michael Steele isn't a currently elected Republican either.
Posted by: bsimon1
_____
Ummm your right he wasn't elected in a general election BUT was ELECTED by Republicans to be their chairman... This is how it finished..
After the fifth round, Steele held a ten vote lead over Katon Dawson, with 79 votes, and Saul Anuzis dropped out. After the sixth vote, he won the chairmanship of the RNC over Dawson by a vote of 91 to 77.


Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Three faces of the GOP:
1. the face of death
2. the face of lies and deception
3. the face of wrinkled old men who are clueless in todays world.

That's the three faces of the GOP.

Posted by: ScottChallenger | June 2, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

The dilemma for the GOP is not so much in the old, tired, empty faces that they show the country. Their dilemma is that they have nothing to say and don't know how to hide it. They stand for nothing, care about nothing except the rich and the corporate interest. They are irrelevant and they are finally understanding that fact and that the American public understands it also.

Posted by: moemongo | June 2, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"Steele Tries to Set Sotomayor Groundrules"


Based on what? He's a party official, who has zero authority, representing zero voters.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 2, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Rush is really starting to look like Archie Bunker. How appropriate.

Posted by: hitpoints | June 2, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse

It is a look at Michael Dukakis' demographics breakdown within the context of the makeup of the 2008 electorate. The conclusion was that Dukakis would win if the 1988 election were to be held 20 years later
_____
Well I guess that didn't help Kerry 4 years ago. Democrats have to realize Obama beat a 72 year old guy who said the economy was not his strong suit.. And they needed the BEST they had to do it. Obama is popular now.. why not style points he gets an A and so far all he has done is hand out BILLIONS of dollars. But that bill will come due, and how the economy responds will make a effect Obama. Not to mention he has yet to touch the illegal immergration problem yet.. There are 12 to 14 million illegals in this country. Give them amnisty and he will be a hero on the Left.. But how will moderates react? Then there is affrimative action.. He's pick Sotomayor supports it.. but hard to believe Whites in general don't believe those firefighters don't deserve promotions. The next election will NOT come down to how many minorities support Republicans but how many moderates. Obama will try to stick to the middle.. how successful he is could decide 2012.

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 10:22 AM | Report abuse

jfern03 wrote:
GOP
The party of hate, bigotry, fear mongering and violence.
------------------------------------------
For those who hold pitch forks, accusing others for fear mongering is kinda ironic.

And those who elevate latina-supremists to the supreme court, bigotry accusations are at best an attempt to negate their own guilt.

Regarding hate? Here's a fact check:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701904.html

As they say about liberals: funny when not in power and angry when they have power.

Posted by: NoWeCant | June 2, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

"These are the 3 he picks? NONE of them are currently elected Republicans. Meanwhile NO mention Michael Steele the
Republican National Committee Chairman?"


PSSSTT-- Michael Steele isn't a currently elected Republican either.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 2, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"Minorities gravitate to dependency. White people gravitate to independence."

Keep on gravitating, man... When your back is to the Gulf of Mexico, keep goin'...

Posted by: LeroyTheRoadie1 | June 2, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

What do the three stooges have in common?
They are reactionaries, lack decency, and common sense.
That's the reason the GOP is now the Gooffy Oooold Party.

Posted by: analyst72 | June 2, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD

So to you it is just a coincidence?

Posted by: ChangeWhat | June 2, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Here in "American", "you are free to take the same advise"...

Oops... Another little slippy on the keyboard..?

Who needs comedy shows...? The main guy is right here...!

Posted by: LeroyTheRoadie1 | June 2, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

"These are the 3 he picks? NONE of them are currently elected Republicans. Meanwhile NO mention Michael Steele the
Republican National Committee Chairman? Or Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal??? Quick think of three faces of the Democratic party: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright immediately come to mind. Wow I guess that means Democrats are in trouble huh??? Chris this was stupid even for you..."

Well, you do have to admit that Cheney, Gingrich, and Limbaugh do spend a lot of time on TV and radio.

Quick, which one of those three has recently come out in favor of gay marriage?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

GOP

The party of hate, bigotry, fear mongering and violence.

Good Riddance to the neanderthal goons and their supporters.

Posted by: jfern03 | June 2, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

If the GOP do not realize that it is not politics as usual they will continue to lose elections. By become the party of NO they are dooming themselves to having no one but the base. That is all you can stimulate with hate. If they refuse to let moderates have a say and that is the case they will retreat to the very deepest of the red states where the swing voters can not reach them as of yet. But in time if they continue the swing voters will touch them even there.

Posted by: antonio3 | June 2, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"As America has become stupid with a limited attention span, ranks lower internationally in basic education scores, illiterate illegals swarm in, the ranks of the non-tax paying government dependents swell, the population knows more about their Hollywood morons than their own government and history, and the media is lax - a Democrat Party is more favored. Coincidence?"

I still find it funny that there are people out there pushing the "Republicans are just plain smarter" idea. Yeah, that's why people with college degrees are so heavily favor Democrats. Because you know that anyone who gets an education must be a fool, right? Keep it up. One of the reasons the Republican party is so bereft of ideas is that they drive away the people who could potentially produce them.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"Demographics, in politics, is destiny. Republicans must find a way to solve their demographic dilemma quickly or risk being a minority party for years to come."


I glanced at the gallup data last night, but don't recall if they offered crosstabs by age. Over at 538, several weeks ago, they reviewed the future electoral prospects of the GOP based on age. The problem being, for the GOP, that the youth vote overwhelmingly identify as Dem voters. Point being: the GOP problem isn't just a lack of appeal to non-whites, it is also a lack of appeal to youth.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 2, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

GOP: TAKE THE OPENING CREATED BY TEAM OBAMA'S INACTION ON RESTORING CIVIL LIBERTIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN AMERICA.

EMBRACE LIBERTARIAN VALUES. FIGHT 'BIG BROTHER' INFRINGEMENTS ON PERSONAL LIBERTY...

...SUCH AS GOVERNMENT-ENABLED, COVERT GPS "COMMUNITY STALKING" OF UNJUSTLY 'TARGETED' CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES...

...A NATIONWIDE VIGILANTE GESTAPO SPAWNED OR EXPANDED UNDER BUSH-CHENEY...

...NOW ENABLED BY UNAWARE OR MISINFORMED OFFICIALS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.


The domestic abuses of Bush-Cheney continue under the radar of the national media. Democracy is being stolen at the grassroots by an extrajudicial targeting and punishment apparatus whose methods and tactics parallel those employed by the German Gestapo...

...a secretive, multi-agency coordinated array of programs and policies that pose a clear and present danger to democracy in America... programs that are proliferating silent, injury- and illness-inducing microwave radiation "directed energy weapons" used to degrade the minds and bodies of civilian "targets."

Congress: When will you realize that the Bush-Cheney- spawned "torture matrix" extends into every American community, fronted by federally-funded citizen volunteer and community policing programs?

Please read this, and do your oversight duty by holding hearings on the DOMESTIC branch of the "extrajudicial targeting and punishment matrix."

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | June 2, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Are you just figuring this out NOW, Cillizza? I've got a another big tip for your next column. The newest president is, get this, black! I know! Incredible!

Posted by: bigbrother1 | June 2, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Quick -- think of the three faces of the Republican party: Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich immediately come to mind.
____
These are the 3 he picks? NONE of them are currently elected Republicans. Meanwhile NO mention Michael Steele the
Republican National Committee Chairman? Or Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal??? Quick think of three faces of the Democratic party: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright immediately come to mind. Wow I guess that means Democrats are in trouble huh??? Chris this was stupid even for you...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 2, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

If the Republicans have no party, they have only their own Floundering Fathers to blame.

Posted by: edwardkeating | June 2, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"Quick -- think of the three faces of the Republican party. What do they have in common?"
--------------------------------------------
They all have gout.

Posted by: tellthetruth01 | June 2, 2009 10:01 AM | Report abuse

PS: They lost the Blacks and the Hispanics long ago. The demographic in which they're hemorrhaging support fastest right now is actually college-educated voters.

The Republican creed is anathema to educated people, and this as much as anything is going to kill their party.

As they work on appealing to their NASCAR/redneck base, their language and ideas become ever more childish.

Posted by: Bud0 | June 2, 2009 10:01 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"Morning Fix: GOP Faces Demographic Dilemma"


At first glance, I read that as

"GOP Faces Demogogue Dilemma"


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 2, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Would America seriously entertain turning our country over to this group of bigots and hate mongering morons? I think not. Their time has come and gone--thank goodness. They will continue to spew forth hate and will continue to be the leaders of the extreme right wing nut cases but their support will continue to dwindle. It is up to the mainstream of the republican party to change things. If they can't do so, the republican party will become meaningless.

Posted by: charlie44 | June 2, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

This morning, JakeD said to King of Zouk, "Sit back. I'll handle the libs on this thread. You get the next thread."

Anyway, the problem with the 2-party system is that neither party can capably represent all of their members. I'm sure the angry, white conservatives are thinking, "What's wrong with being angry and white and conservative? That's who I am and I deserve a voice!" That's true, but I know that there are tons of conservatives who cringe at Rush Limbaugh and then think to themselves, "Why can't the Republican Party be more like the way I want it to be?"

There are similar feelings in my party. As Zouk and other Righties love to point out, we've got angry people on the Left side, as well. And tons of liberals look at the angry among us and think, "Geez, lighten up, would ya? You're not helping."

I believe we need either: A) A third, centrist party that pulls the moderates away from the D's and R's, or B) Two additional parties that pull the "extremists" away from the D's and R's.

Either option continues to provide balance, I believe, and allows more people to feel like they have a voice.

Posted by: dognabbit | June 2, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

A lot of new faces today. What gives? (a good thing, though)

Anyways, I don't know if Cheney has said anything about Sotomayor, but the other two haven't been shy about expressing their feelings. The actual Republican Senators have been a lot more restrained in their talk. However, the flame throwing of the TV/radio personalities threatens to be tied around the necks of the elected officials and this could be costly in terms of the Hispanic vote. It seems like the only way to inoculate themselves from the flame throwing is to actually vote for the woman.

Incidentally, I had posted this yesteday, but it is more appropriate today. It is a look at Michael Dukakis' demographics breakdown within the context of the makeup of the 2008 electorate. The conclusion was that Dukakis would win if the 1988 election were to be held 20 years later. Obviously this is very simplistic, but the main idea is that demographics have shifted quite a but since the Reagan years and the strategy of currying favor with white voters through racially charged politics is coming back to bite them on the ass.

The first column is the original work. The next two columns are fivethirtyeight.com columns on the original column as well as one on the racial makeup of the electorates of the two parties.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/13590/republicans-need-more-than-a-4-national-swing

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/would-mike-dukakis-have-won-2008.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/gop-has-always-been-dominated-by-white.html

Posted by: DDAWD | June 2, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

The GOP's biggest deficit is not among women or even minorities, but among the young. It's not their uinversally white skin colour that's going to do them in, it's the white hair. They're going to die, and nobody is going to replace them.

Posted by: Bud0 | June 2, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Democrats tend to see the government as the solution to their problems.
Conservatives tend to see themselves as the solution.
Minorities gravitate to dependency. White people gravitate to independence.

****************************************
More correctly, Democrats recognize that everything in this world is not equal except that is for the effort put forward. There are millions of people in this country who work very hard and are still unable to afford healthcare, unable to afford a home, unable to put away money for retirement - never dreaming they will be able to actually retire only to work until they drop dead. These people need to know that their government is proud to have them and they are a very important part of our economic welfare.

As to Conservatives being part of the solution - you coulda fooled me with that one - give one good solution they have offered besides cutting taxes for the wealthy. Just one - that is the problem with Conservatives - they have not offered any solutions for a very long time. They are still stuck on "lower taxes" and "let the market right itself" - when the overwhelming evidence has confirmed this just doesn't work. So, you can no longer call it a "solution".

Please, provide some solutions - I don't care which party has the best solutions I just would like to have a united United States instead of united parties.

Posted by: Kathy5 | June 2, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Chris, it isn't just a matter of demographics. There is also some sort of reflexive aversion on the part of elected republicans to take on these three unelected spokesmen. These three have absolutely no political power and are not like to have in the future. All three are damaged goods. Cheney, by dint of his massive Iraq debacle; Gingrich by his personal life and tarnished image of losing the seats after pursuing the impeachment of Bill Clinton so doggedly; and Limbaugh who is seen not only as an addictive personality by most Americans but also as something of a laughingstock.

It should be a no brainer for republicans to cast these three overboard. The mystery is that they seem incapable of doing so.

Posted by: jaxas | June 2, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Good points, NoWeCant, bc54321, and hipshot.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Dear swanieaz,

Your list is incomplete. Her it is in its entirety:

1. homophobic neanderthals
2. tax-phobic cockroaches
3. selfish cowards
4. religious hypocrites
5. mean spirited jackasses
6. hateful mamma's boys
7. sexually repressed perverts
8. anal retentive crybabies
9. self-righteous simpletons
10. misogynists
11. rednecks
12. anti-intellectuals
13. paranoid schizophrenics
13. callous slugs
14. greedy hogs
15. stupid, stupid, stupid

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | June 2, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Moe, Larry, and Curly.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | June 2, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Democrats tend to see the government as the solution to their problems.
Conservatives tend to see themselves as the solution.
Minorities gravitate to dependency. White people gravitate to independence.

Posted by: hipshot | June 2, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"Coincidence?"

Nope. People have always been lazy, stupid and more fond of the status quo than necessary change. Has nothing to do with immigration or whatever other pet issues you trotted out just now. It's not an American phenomenon, nor is it a recent phenomenon. In this country, our biggest fault is that we act like ignorance and provincialism are virtues (e.g. Sarah Palin), when they're not. They're deep and troubling character flaws.

Posted by: bc54321 | June 2, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Another non-sense 'GOP is irrelevant' article. 46% voted for an old white guy last nov when it was least popular to do so. After all elections the party affiliations drop till the next election when the push comes to shove. That's why while over 50% voted for Obama the party affiliation after the election dropped to 34%. Where has the difference gone and why? GOP has to be the party of individual liberty and not follow the race-appeasing principles of the Democratic party. Racism in all it's nuances it a liberal disease and the blue cities are a proof. Respect the individual and you'll see a revival.

Posted by: NoWeCant | June 2, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

The GOP problem is that they embraced fundamentalism as practical politics. It worked for awhile - the 20th Century saw more change in culture and technology than at any time in history. The response from people to assimilate the rapid change was a resort to wishful thinking of days-gone-by. Today, in the 21ts Century, a new generation has matured - the fundamentalist movement has run its course. ..........


http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/05/28/the-rise-and-fall-of-20th-century-fundamentalism/

Posted by: glclark4750 | June 2, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

You are free to take the same advise (I went out on the boat yesterday and have an early tee time tomorrow, so hopefully that respite will be enough for you).

Posted by: JakeD

==

Yesterday you ate a can of pork and beans out of the can with a plastic fork, tomorrow you thaw out a salisbury steak TV dinner. Think anyone believes a word you say? Think anyone gives a crap how you alleviate the turbo-charged tedium that is your "life?" Just go away, Jake.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone else see Sen. Dorgan on The Colbert Report last night?

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Two comments:

-Regarding the three men, you left out obnoxious, bigots, misogynists, and fat.

-Someone wrote that they think "...of Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney, who, as a Jew, a woman, and a Mormon, don't fit into your pre-conceived notions of what a typical Republican is." ANYONE who thinks that the "empty suit" Palin and the BIGOT Cantor are the 'new" Republican Party simply doesn't get it.

I left the "R" party in 2008 for EXACTLY the reason stated by so many comments. There is NO ROOM IN THE CURRENT "R" Party for MODERATES, and until that happens, the "Party of 21%" will become the "Party of 15%" (if they are lucky).

Enough.

.

Posted by: swanieaz | June 2, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

If your comments are true (which they are not) then the alternative offered by the Democrats is one where we all belong to our racial, sexual or class "tribes" and we get bought off by the Govt to maintain the peace, until it all collapses.

I find the Democrat vision quite frightening.

Posted by: pgr88 | June 2, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday Jake said he served in the Korean war in the Army (see the previous Fix) despite claiming he;s 72, so he enlisted at age 12. Keep that in mind as you read his stupid-a$$ comments

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Another thing they have in common - all were draft dodgers...now they act like the toughest guy in the room...

Posted by: KENMAREINC | June 2, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Well, maybe for you, since you're obviously a Democrat. I think of Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney, who, as a Jew, a woman, and a Mormon, don't fit into your pre-conceived notions of what a typical Republican is.

==

heh heh heh

A plastic skull, an aisle-rolling snake-handler exorcistee, and a one-dimensional arrogant "CEO." That's some impressive crew. Good luck with them.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

God uses ALL things (even the evil Obama) for good for those who love God and...

==

You're starting to hallucinate, you lying cretin. Keep your celestial playmate out of these comments

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 9:24 AM | Report abuse

"Over fifty"! Limbaugh, the youngest by more than a decade, is crowding sixty and follows the dietary regimen of Jabba the Hud. Cheney and Gingrich are in their late sixties.

Posted by: drlbrty | June 2, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Demographics are the least of their problems. Their big one is ideas. They have nothing to offer but anger at losing two elections and hate for everyone not as crazy as they are. The southern strategy, borrowing from the Redneck Manifesto, went way to far and managed to alienate anyone with an education.

Hadn't seen a pic of Neut for a while. He looks awful.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 2, 2009 9:21 AM | Report abuse


As America has become stupid with a limited attention span, ranks lower internationally in basic education scores, illiterate illegals swarm in, the ranks of the non-tax paying government dependents swell, the population knows more about their Hollywood morons than their own government and history, and the media is lax - a Democrat Party is more favored. Coincidence?

Posted by: ChangeWhat | June 2, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

this is too much fun, watching The Party of the Wide Stance go down in flames.

Posted by: patriot76 | June 2, 2009 9:05 AM | Report abuse

"Quick -- think of the three faces of the Republican party: Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich immediately come to mind."

Well, maybe for you, since you're obviously a Democrat. I think of Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney, who, as a Jew, a woman, and a Mormon, don't fit into your pre-conceived notions of what a typical Republican is.

Yet another example of Democratic bias in Washington Post reporting and opinion.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | June 2, 2009 9:02 AM | Report abuse

All prior reports about the demise of the GOP have been premature too. Keep it up though. Maybe this time ...

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

cgregglondon:

You are free to take the same advise (I went out on the boat yesterday and have an early tee time tomorrow, so hopefully that respite will be enough for you).

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:47 AM | Report abuse

This is exactly why the racially-based furor over Sotomayor is a clear boon for Democrats and another step on the road to oblivion for the GOP.

Even moderate whites are tired of hateful language from old names like Gingrich and Limbaugh.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | June 2, 2009 8:44 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes:

Don't miss that Cheney said that State LEGISLATURES should decide that issue, not liberal judges imposing their own will.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Jake D,
Seriously, after about 2 comments you become very boring. Try thinking about other peoples discourse, check out other websites, maybe take a walk.

Posted by: cgregglondon | June 2, 2009 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Republicans are now the Party of Old Angry White Conservatives, a few Young Angry White Conservatives, and a few angry White Conservative women. What they have in "common" is that they are all angry & white.... and soon will all be old & men.

Posted by: wmboyd | June 2, 2009 8:38 AM | Report abuse

OK, so back on topic, how many faces of the GOP have we identified so far? I count over a dozen.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:37 AM | Report abuse

daler1:

No, I saw you were trying to be cute with the first letters of each last name. Since that's an acrostic (sp?) that no one else is using -- and Mr. Cillizza's thread continues re: the real head on the RNC -- maybe my post stating the obvious went over your head.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Good point JakeD, Notice how Cheney supports Gay marriage as long as the States decide it and Obama is against Gay Marriage. Why is Obama a bigot when it comes to Gay issues?

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 2, 2009 8:29 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, I'm not surprised that went right over your head. Maybe I'll lower the bar next time.

Posted by: daler1 | June 2, 2009 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Another thing to keep in mind is that abortion was just ONE social issue. Here in California, at least, the higher AFRICAN-AMERICAN turnout for Obama pushed Prop. 8 over the top too. Let that sink in for a bit.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:21 AM | Report abuse


As America has become stupid, ranks lower internationally in basic education scores, illiterate illegals swarm in, the ranks of the non-tax payers swell, the population knows more about their Hollywood morons than their own government and history - a more Democrat Party is favored. Coincidence?

Posted by: ChangeWhat | June 2, 2009 8:20 AM | Report abuse

jkeys1:

Nope, I want him to fail. And, I can list more "bones" and pretty soon we've got a whole skeleton ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:14 AM | Report abuse

No, daler1. While you Democrats can argue all day about who the face of the GOP is, the face of the RNC is Steele (did you even read the thread?).

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Marco Rubio is a Cuban American who is almost intimately connected with the Bush family.
Republican block voting by Cuban Americans existed for over 40 years and has only recently begun to weaken to the point that old line Cuban American Politicians have found themselves in genuine election contests.
As a long time Floridian, I have observed the special status Cuban Immigrants enjoy makes that community vastly different from other Hispanic Immigrants.
Marco Rubio is what he is and that is an individual who has been manufactured and pre-packaged by a powerful source the Bush family and since that name is almost toxic politically Rubio, the Madison Avenue version of a Hispanic American, is put into play.

Posted by: wmc418 | June 2, 2009 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Sometimes you can get so far into the weeds that you miss the big picture. The dems did not take control of the government because of any new fresh ideas, it is just the public wasn't happy the way things were going so they voted republicans out. Now that the dems have control, the public will also sour on them in due time and bring back the republicans. Just the nature of politics.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 2, 2009 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Reply to JakeD:

Jake, you are correct about those few "bones" that were thrown your way by BushCheney. Aside from that, the overall gist of my analysis of those 8 years is still valid.

I would think Rush and you pro-lifers, and all of the other right wing social idealogues, would be pulling for Obama to succeed rather than to "fail".

The sooner people can afford to live again, the sooner they will be able to afford the luxury of their social bigotry again.

Until then, it will still be about the pulling for our new president to rescue us from this devastated economy, and not about your social wedge issues that divided us.

Posted by: jkeys1 | June 2, 2009 8:07 AM | Report abuse

#1, Great insights by dlpetersdc on how anger is not a way to build an enduring political base.

#2, It won't matter if the Republicans recruit Hispanic or African-American candidates if those candidates have the same stance on social issues that has characterized the Republican Party for the past 30 years or so. The Gen Xers and Millennials are, overwhelmingly, socially liberal on issues such as gay rights, use of recreational drugs, racial and religious diversity, etc. The Republican base, white people around 60 in the South and Midwest, don't share those sentiments. It will be impossible for the Republicans to recover nationally without alienating that base.

Posted by: jhpurdy | June 2, 2009 8:06 AM | Report abuse

misterjrthed:

Do you honestly think that Cheney, Limbaugh, or Gingrich will be the GOP nominee in 2012? If not, who cares what the "face" was in 2009? If I were you, I'd be worrying more about a majority of America (made up of GOP, Democrats, and Independent) being pro-life and not wanting GTMO closed.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 8:05 AM | Report abuse

To save some typing can we just refer to Rush, Newt, & Cheney as the RNC?

Posted by: daler1 | June 2, 2009 8:01 AM | Report abuse

"What do these men all have in common?"

The field is even narrower than you suggest. These men are not just "over 50," they're all at leat 58. All of them could stand to lose some weight. All of them have lived in the south, though none was born or raised there. And all of these things are also true of another very prominent Repub, Karl Rove.

Posted by: misterjrthed | June 2, 2009 7:56 AM | Report abuse

There are, of course, other "faces" to the GOP (just as an example this very thread continues with reference to Steele and the previous thread was about Mr. Cillizza's number one pick for the GOP nomination).

P.S. to jkeys1:

God uses ALL things (even the evil Obama) for good for those who love God and are called to His purpose. I do have one question for you now. If the Bush Administration ignored pro-lifers, why was there a ban on foreign aid paying for abortions and no new federal aid for human embryonic stem cell research, not to mention the ban on partial-birth abortion finally sticking? Sorry if you think that's a loaded question, but that simply states the facts. There are other pro-life firsts under the Bush Administration if you want to discuss. At least he got Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2009 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Amazing, the Post is paying for an op-ed which does nothing more than paraphrase the 5/18/09 Gallup Poll. In fact, anyone who read the Gallup Poll got more information as can be seen from some responders. Republican "leaders" are not just splitting the Party into 2 camps (old, white, moderates vs. old, white conservatives), but, for example, the old, white, conservatives are dooming Crist and a few other "southern" "moderate" Republicans to losing by alienating Hispanics (attacking Sotomayor).

Posted by: wmboyd | June 2, 2009 7:25 AM | Report abuse

The repubs have always been a minority party comprised of mostly white conservatives. Karl Rove figured out a solution to their dilemma by appealing to people's social prejudices with wedge issues, (e.g. roe v wade, brown v board of ed, gay marriage, affirmative action, civil rights, gun owners, right wing religious folks,etc.) to get them to vote republican, even though they had nothing in common with the repubs from an economic standpoint.

But then the Bush Cheney administration ignored their social issue base once they got in office and favored the economic issues of their rich conservative base, which left their social issue base out in the cold.

When the conservative economic policies began to hurt the social issue base badly enough, they realized that they would be better served to put aside their social prejudices and stop supporting the rich haves, and focus their support on the dems with whom they share the common economic interests of the have nots.

However, their challenge was to face the fact that they were hurting so much economically, that in order to vote for their best interests, they would have to actually vote for a black man for the first time in their lives. And they did just that!

Which just goes to prove that old adage, given the choice between bigotry and pocket book issues...bigotry eventually gives way to the pocket book. Or to put it another way, "it's the economy stupid!"

I'm still amazed that we have a president named Barack Obama! America has come a long way and matured a lot since the 60's, haven't we?

As for Rush/Hannity/Newt/Cheney/Rove, I wouldn't worry too much about their racists rants and raves. I don't think the social wedge issues will work anymore for a long time. At least not until we climb out of this ecomomic mess they left us with.

Once folks can afford to live again, then they can drift back to the social issues that divide us, rather than staying with the issues that unite us. Until then...just continue to marvel in how we have all come together to support our first black president!! Isn't God's work amazing!

Posted by: jkeys1 | June 2, 2009 7:17 AM | Report abuse

You forgot the other two faces of the
Republican party: Sean Hannity, another angry white male blowing off steam, and
Ann Coulter, the angry white female conservative. The Republican party would be doing themselves a huge favor to ask
all five (with Cheney, Limbaugh, and Gingricht) to just simply GO AWAY, and begin bringing out their reasonable representatives.

Posted by: kimbaa1 | June 2, 2009 7:13 AM | Report abuse

"When will the GOP finally be GONE"

As soon as dems get serious about taking the fight in red states, getting the fund raising and voter registration necisarry to do so

Posted by: derekmanners | June 2, 2009 7:13 AM | Report abuse

When will the GOP finally be GONE? God, I am so sick of these self righteous crazy lunatics and their fringe politics ruling this country.

Posted by: meowomon | June 2, 2009 7:07 AM | Report abuse

There's another face of the Republican Party this week - Scott Roeder. His are the same values that sustain Limbaugh and Cheney; Gingrich is merely more genteel. It's silly to talk about trying to make the GOP more inclusive when its entire raison d'etre is built on hate.

Posted by: YBNorma | June 2, 2009 7:03 AM | Report abuse

I worked for Obama, I am a big time liberal and would love to see a broad (conservative-liberal) democratic rule of this country. However I think calling for the death of the republican party is a little premature. Republians 2010 senate chances looked really bleak before Obama won but he took AZ and KS off the table, Crist took Florida most likely off the table, Mike Castle could put DE on the table for republicans, etc. And they already looked pretty good in the gov races. They are pretty much garunteed KS and TN and WY if Freudenthal doesn't run which who knows at this poitn. If Pawlenty stays in the race and signs the election certificate, and they will probably get OK, AZ, etc. Don't count republicans out of the count yet, if we are going to do this we have to out work them both in fundraising and registering voters along with supporting President Obama's policies.

Posted by: derekmanners | June 2, 2009 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Seeing the 3 mug shots at the top of your column is enough to frighten anyone from the GOP. Aside from the fact that the Republican party is comprised of mainly old white men, these 3 (Cheney, Limbaugh and Gingrich) have been around too long as part of the debate. The GOP won't get anywhere by following these 3 who've been on the national scene for over 15 years now.. They look tired and are tiring to listen to in terms of their broken record rants.

The GOP does have a few (such as Huntsman) who have a broader appeal outside the party but they don't seem to have the ear of whoever's minding the GOP store.

As the debate swallows the GOP (and the party gets smaller) it will be quite some time before they sort themselves and decide on a strategy to again become a party that will attract a cross-section of the US population.

Posted by: RickJ | June 2, 2009 6:31 AM | Report abuse

no political party can sustain itself when the majority of its members are angry voters. I worked as a local party leader for several years and I saw first hand that people who were angry or had a strong point of view on a particular issue or grudge against an individual elected official tended to come in, make a lot of noise, and then burn themselves out after one or two election cycles. You saw that with the Reform Party. After Jesse Ventura's election in Minnesota the party basically collapsed, a victim of inside feuding. Angry, ticked off people are just that. Angry and ticked off. All they basically want to do is complain. This type of political activist tends to come in, make a lot of noise, complaint about "corrupt politicians." The republicans tried to harness that anger and for a while they were successful. But they allowed the anger come to define who they were. And the brand has come to stand for angry old white guys. The trouble for the republican party is they allowed these angry old white guys to scare everyone else away, and now that's all the party has left. And like the reform party, independent party, the green party or whatever example you want to use, a party build on anger and "throw all the bums out" will slowly wither and fade into oblivion. And that's what you see happening to the republicans. The angry white guys chased off the other members of their party, and now they are suffering for it.

Posted by: dlpetersdc | June 2, 2009 6:24 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company