Wow, Meghan McCain! So you've starter the long-awaited take-down of that other pillar of the Republican party: Ann Coulter. Well, it's working! Your new blog post on the Daily Beast has everyone gawking (and Gawkered) in amazement. Now we just await Coulter's response.
Just read this salivation-worthy sample:
Coulter could be the poster woman for the most extreme side of the Republican Party. And in some ways I could be the poster woman for the opposite. I consider myself a progressive Republican, but here is what I don’t get about Coulter: Is she for real or not? Are some of her statements just gimmicks to gain publicity for her books or does she actually believe the things she says? Does she really believe all Jewish people should be “perfected” and become Christians? And what was she thinking when she said Hillary Clinton was more conservative than my father during the last election? If you truly have the GOP’s best interests at heart, how can you possibly justify telling an audience of millions that a Democrat would be a better leader than the Republican presidential candidate? (I asked Ann for comment on this column, including many of the above questions, but she did not answer my request.)
I am not suggesting that extreme conservatism wasn’t once popular, nor am I suggesting I should in any way be any kind of voice for the party. I have been a Republican for less than a year. Still, even after losing the election, I find myself more drawn to GOP ideals and wanting to fight for the party’s resurgence. And if figureheads like Ann Coulter are turning me off, then they are definitely turning off other members of my generation as well. She does appeal to the most extreme members of the Republican Party—but they are dying off, becoming less and less relevant to the party structure as a whole. I think most people my age are like me in that we all don’t believe in every single ideal of each party specifically. The GOP should be happy to have any young supporters whatsoever, even if they do digress some from traditional Republican thinking.
Girls! Girls! Oh my God, this is going to be scarier than Jo and Blair in a pool of heated mud, or else a musical version of Atlas Shrugged. Read the comments after McCain's piece to enjoy the scrum within the scrum.
Sphere: Related Content
This is going to be a short post but I think it's an important one. So there's been all this chatter about how strategist James Carville and pollster Stanley Greenberg hatched the current Rush-Limbaugh-is-the-leader-of-the-GOP meme and now the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has created a whole webpage, called I'm Sorry Rush, to spotlight how the leaders of the right must kiss Pope Rush's ring whenever they deviate from Republican orthodoxy.
So I laughed at first.
Then I thought -- wait a minute, so, some of this is coming out of the White House? Isn't this what Obama said he wouldn't do? Come on -- can't the Democrats be better than this? What makes anyone think the American people won't object -- and loudly? Don't screw up this moment with such stupidity. The Republicans, it seems to me, can do all that by themselves, no?
As I was swamped with a project, I paid relatively little attention to the recent CPAC conference, although I'm sure it was chock-full of all the same self-aggrandizing, anti-Democratic hatred that we have come to expect from the party of tax-cut-and-spend and back-a-war-rationalized-by-lies.
Still, if the Democrats are ascendant at the moment, surely they won't be forever -- or knowing the history of my party, for long -- so it would be smart if we paid attention to the ways in which the right-wing is trying to get itself together because someday, somehow, it will. As you all know, I am personally sickened by the hyper-radical strain of the GOP -- the side that prays to a God it thinks it knows more intimately than you do for the failure of the current president. But I'm concerned, too, because without a strong GOP, the left is going to push the Democrats too far to the left (the GOP naturally argues that this has already occurred). What we would be left with then is a president ideally hoping to govern from the center, a Democratic party standing all too much to the left of him, and a GOP standing all too much to the right of him. As per tradition, we would have gridlock -- yes, even with 60 seats in the Senate -- and who, then, would lose? Well, the American people, of course, but also Obama himself. If the GOP can hang on and never, ever give an inch, they can deny him the opportunity to turn his attempts at compromise, at solution-building, at conciliation into the same old politics as usual, which would thereby destroy the one thing that sells him better than anything else: his brand. And you can bet the GOP is betting the house that such a tactic will work. It's party above nation, and they're the masters of it.
But at the same time, the GOP does have to take long, inward look at itself in any event -- even if my cynicism about them is completely erroneous. It's almost sad watching them go after some pseudo-cosmetic fixes that would appear to address the changing landscape of our politics in the wake of electing a biracial president without actually changing any of their own. I'm not saying Michael Steele isn't a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, but I think most people in the center and on the left would find it difficult to believe that the GOP's powerbrokers did not think about the ethnicity of Steele as they elected him the de facto leader of their party. At the same time, the CPAC convention revealed, I think, how very uncomfortable -- maybe a better word could be unfamiliar -- the powerbrokers of the GOP are when it comes to race. Take a look at this video:
That was during the campaign, when Bachmann, a representative from Minnesota, continually tiptoed right up to the line of what is acceptable political discourse. However, if you take a look at this video (up until 1:30 is what's most salient):
...Congresswoman Bachmann just spills over into whitey-trying-for-blackness territory, and the effect is just awful. I'm not saying she's a racist. I'm saying she's out of her element, she's trying desperately to figure out what is politically correct. Has she ever thought of, "Michael Steele!" -- in other words, not needing to punctuate her lauding of him without slipping into ebonics?
Here is a sentence you probably never expected to read: Utah's governor supports civil unions.
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a spokeswoman said Monday, backs Equality Utah's Common Ground Initiative, a legislative effort that would provide some rights to gay and transgender Utahns. Even more, the Republican governor favors civil unions.
It's a position that runs counter to his political party and against the majority of Utahns -- 70 percent of whom oppose civil unions, according to a recent Salt Lake Tribune poll.
"He's long supported many of the ideas that are presented within the Common Ground Initiative," said Lisa Roskelley, the governor's spokeswoman, noting her boss waits to endorse specific bills officially until presented to him in final form. "He supports civil unions."
It's doubtful Huntsman's backing will lead to civil unions getting past the conservative Legislature. And it may not help the rest of this year's gay-rights legislative push, which already has shrunk from four bills to two.
On Day Two of the 2009 Legislature, a measure died in committee that would have allowed financial dependents -- besides spouses, parents and children -- to sue in the event of a breadwinner's wrongful death.
And last week, Rep. Jackie Biskupski, D-Salt Lake City, ditched her proposal, which would have sought the Legislature's and voters' approval to erase the second part of Amendment 3 -- Utah's constitutional gay-marriage ban -- that forbids civil unions.
Huntsman, who endorsed Amendment 3 when he ran for governor in 2004, now favors repealing that portion, Roskelley said.
She said the governor was unavailable to comment Monday.
Jeff Reynolds, spokesman for the conservative Salt Lake City-based Sutherland Institute think tank, which opposes the Common Ground Initiative, said he's "not surprised" by Huntsman's softened stand.
"He had to be dragged to the altar of Amendment 3," Reynolds said in an e-mail, "and everyone has known since then that Governor Huntsman would rather be nice than right."
Notice that last line of what I quoted -- that Gov. Huntsman would "rather be nice than right." To turn that around, the social-issue ultra-conservatives that have driven the GOP would rather preach hate than accept that a majority of the nation does not stand with them. Curiously, by the way, notice how one of the party's not-so-scary new darlings, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, deftly deals with the question of how to make the GOP more inclusive, even if it means acceding to the center on the question of gay rights:
As for Rush, feh. There's nothing I can add to the discussion of him except to say that I hope his oxycontin supplier keeps him happy.
Sphere: Related Content
Short post on this, but Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, is correctly crowing this morning after the HRC generated a national action alert against a TV station in Michigan that was planning to air a virulently antigay propaganda program. The TV station has backed down, but it has me thinking, especially in light of the probabilty that the GOP will vote in lockstep against the stimulus, thus further cementing its status as the national movement of "no."
First, should we indulge ourselves into thinking that hate programming such as this is not a part of a larger campaign to come, directed toward all those on the center or the left? I say that this is but the tip of the Obama-era iceberg.
Second, what's the game plan for the left and center? Why are we forever positioned as reactive, not proactive? (It seems that way to me, anyway.)
Below is the press release that is also now on the HRC website.
Michigan Television Station Pulls Misleading AFA Program Following Announcement of National Action Alert By Human Rights Campaign
Station manager releases statement: "The Offer is now off the table."
2/11/2009
WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, today issued a national action alert against the American Family Association's (AFA) one-hour television special called "Speechless: Silencing Christians," which is promoted to "reveal the truth about the radical homosexual agenda and its impact on the family, the nation and religious freedom." Within an hour of that action alert announcement, the Grand Rapids, MI station which had planned to air the deceptive programming rescinded that offer.
WOOD-TV General Manager Diane Kniowski posted the following announcement just before 4 p.m. saying it would not run the AFA paid 60-minute program on Saturday as planned: "We made a gesture of the 2-3 p.m. Saturday time period. It's been 24 hours and we had no response," Kniowski said. "Our station is being bombarded with calls and messages, and we find ourselves in the middle of someone else's fight. Ours was a fair offer and we are removing ourselves from this matter."
The HRC alert urged members to contact the station and ask that they pull the scheduled program and instead air a fair discussion or debate on both the issues and pending legislation.
"I am so proud of our members who answered the lies and distortions of the AFA and stopped this campaign of hate and deception," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Our community stood up and would not let those lies stand."
"This should be our wake up call. We are poised to make real progress, for the first time, for millions of LGBT Americans. We know it and so do our opponents," added Solmonese. "We must stand guard and not allow them to stop these overdue, basic protections by rolling out the same, tired script albeit in new packaging. Today's action proves we have the voices and the power to demand a fair fight and a fair debate."
The AFA program which is still viewable online and may run in other markets, is hosted by controversial talk show host Janet Parshall, who in 2006, suggested Matthew Shepard's lifestyle was responsible for his murder and called gay adoption "state-sanctioned child abuse." (CNN's Larry King Live, Jan. 17, 2006) In the new AFA program, the AFA and its allies purposely promote lies and distortions, including the following:
1. Lie: If hate crimes laws are passed, pastors will be prosecuted for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality. Truth: Pastors will not be held liable for hate crimes based on preaching anti-gay sermons. The First Amendment protects a preacher from being charged as an accessory to a hate crime simply because of their speech. The Matthew Shepard Act only punishes violent crimes, not a person's speech, beliefs or thoughts. In fact, the legislation contains language specifically protecting free speech.
2. Lie: Legislation that will provide employment protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity will force churches to hire homosexuals. Truth: The federal legislation contains language exempting the vast majority of religious corporations, associations and educational institutions, and permits all religious organizations to condition employment on compliance with its significant tenets, including ones barring LGBT employees.
3. Lie: Homosexual acts have a key role to play in the spread of all STDs and HIV/AIDS. Truth: HIV and STDs don't distinguish by gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other characteristic. Statements such as those made by the AFA in this video hamper efforts to prevent the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases by spreading ignorance and misinformation.
4. Lie: Allowing the government to redefine marriage hurts children because studies show children need a mother and father to do well in life. Truth: All scientifically reputable studies on the subject of same-sex parenting show that the sexual orientation of a child's parent does not affect a child. Furthermore, all leading children's welfare and rights organizations conclude that there is no measurable difference between children raised by loving lesbian and gay families and those raised by different-sex couples.
This video has already had wide distribution, but the question is whether the things that the President has put into this bill, which is what he talks about in this video, represents what the American people need and want. If it is, some form of a stimulus package must pass. If it is not, the GOP will have won through their rhetoric and their agenda, which will unquestionably boil down to the nation's continued suffering. But that's doesn't bother the GOP. After all, inflicting pain upon those who need an activist government at times of crisis is virtually all the politics they know. I guess you can't help the way you're raised.
This kind of stuff just makes me angry. Today the Washington Post reports that even before Obama's inauguration, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, is pledging to be a total obstructionist regarding the new president's huge stimulus package.
Like many Republicans, McConnell is content -- even happy -- to see the American people suffer. Let them starve, let them hurt, let them be jobless, let them be hopeless. Oh, but please volunteer for the armed services so we can send you to a war fought on false, misleading pretenses.
I also find these comments on Politico.com, in response to this story, very interesting. You can read the comments here.
Bottom line: It was 25 years of Republican dominance that fiscally decimated my nation. People like McConnell should be taken out in the back somewhere and given a shot of real patriotism. The new president is trying to save the nation. Doesn't anyone realize that? It's that serious, people.
And if you don't believe me, let's talk about something truly apocalyptic: a Russian professor, according to the Wall Street Journal, who is considered neither a wacko nor a fatalist, is openly predicting the end of the USA in 2010. It's such a bizarre story. Here are the first few graphs of that piece:
MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.
In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."
Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.
But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.
Of course this fellow has his own agenda, and no, I don't believe it. But the stakes are terribly high, aren't they? And all McConnell knows how to do is to play politics with the nation -- with the lives of the American people.
Sphere: Related Content
Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Read this piece by Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter of Michigan essentially skewering our darling dimwit of a president for having to think and think and think and think and think about whether to go to the opening of the Olympic Games in light of what's going on in Tibet and the rest of China. McCotter also says in this article that he introduced H.R. 5668, "which would bar any United States government official from attending the Beijing games’ ceremonies," which I didn't know.
Of course, he goes through a long list of ways that politicians could convince Bush not to go, and manages to get in a fair number of plugs for the stupendous right-wing misogyny that the anti-abortion camp holds so dear.
But at least in this very small way, what an upstanding piece he's written. Maybe he's educable. Maybe. Or, you know, I'll just go back to hating him tomorrow.
Well, I did. But the problem is, a truly excellent book by Gary L. Cole, Artless: The Odyssey of a Republican Cultural Creative, is worming its way into changing my mind a little bit. Absolutely excellent, excellent writing and, for once, a memoir that illuminates rather than self-illuminates, if you know what I mean.
I'll be writing a review of the book shortly for Back Stage.
Wow, Meghan McCain! So you've starter the long-awaited take-down of that other pillar of the Republican party: Ann Coulter. Well, it's working! Your new blog post on the Daily Beast has everyone gawking (and Gawkered) in amazement. Now we just await Coulter's response.
