Originally Posted By vbdad55 quite a leap to say all GOP voted with Rush and against jobs etc...that's crapola and the SF gate knows it. If there wasn't any pork in there there wouldn't be an issue - they don't need Rush to point that out for them. Heck even Obama ticked some of it was in there when submitted - does that mean he's with Rush too ? By their connections that would have to be true. really- this again is the worst form of partisan crap from the paper... want to make Rush a 'target' - hell feel free- he's easy to go after...but to make that comment- well No.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Politico is reporting that the liberal outfit Americans United for Change will launch radio ads aimed at more moderate senators that they figure might be easier to peel off to support the stimulus package. << It's not SFGate (Chronicle) itself saying that. It's "reporting" what this PAC group 'Americans United For Change' is saying. There's a difference.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "I honestly don't get why liberal leaders don't denounce Olberman, Stewart, or Franken. Or how about Carville or Begalia? They're nothing more than distractions like clowns at circus." The difference is that Dem leaders are not calling any of those guys up for advice or guidance...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The difference is that Dem leaders are not calling any of those guys up for advice or guidance...> How do you know? Have you not read about the daily calls between Ralm Immanuel and Carville and Begalia?
Originally Posted By dshyates As soon as Harry Ried calls up Jon Stewart begging forgiveness I will believe your onto something.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly. Carville and Begalia, though currently commentators, used to work in the white house. Therefore it makes perfect sense for Immanuel to call them for advise and/or insights, whatever you want to call it. There's no equivalent of some Democratic congressman groveling for forgiveness from Olbermann or Stewart for daring to disagree with them publicly.
Originally Posted By dshyates Anywho, Rush is no longer the head of the GOP. Today they named Steele (D-MD) to be the first Afro-American head of the GOP. See they got one too.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Someone on TV (forget who) had a good point about the total lack of GOP votes in the house for the bill. Nearly all of the moderate Republican reps are gone. For instance, I think with Chris Shays's loss, there are now NO Republican house members from New England any more. None. Dean and Immanuel (in his previous job) had a strategy of running moderate Democrats in districts (often in the south) where they had a chance of winning after previously writing off those districts for years. And with the damage Bush (and later DeLay) did to the Republican brand, many of those moderate Democrats won. And because of the same damage, many moderate Republicans lost. So now, the party in the House is dominated more than ever by right-to-far-right, largely southern white males. Most Republicans in the House represent "deep red" districts and tend towards the far right themselves. There's no political danger to them in voting against this bill - these districts aren't going to vote in a Democrat. The senate is another matter, as by definition senators represent entire states. Obama might find a more receptive audience for some actual compromise there.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Anywho, Rush is no longer the head of the GOP. Today they named Steele (D-MD) to be the first Afro-American head of the GOP. See they got one too.>> Or as he'll be known is some sectors of the Afro-American community....Uncle Tom.
Originally Posted By dshyates From what I know about Michael Steele, he is a moderate in that he is fiscally conservitive, and not much into the right wing moralistic stuff. I think this is a good move to bring the party back into the mainstream.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>From what I know about Michael Steele, he is a moderate in that he is fiscally conservitive, and not much into the right wing moralistic stuff. I think this is a good move to bring the party back into the mainstream.<< >>running for cover now......<< Wise move. >>Meanwhile, Judd Legum, former research director for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and an expert on Maryland politics, offers up "5 Facts About The New RNC Chairman": 1. Steele compared stem cell research to Nazi experiments during the Holocaust. 2. Steele bused in homeless African Americans from Philadelphia to distribute literature in inner-city Baltimore that featured a "Sample Democratic Ballot" with votes for Steele and former Gov. Bob Ehrlich, along with photos of prominent black Democrats. 3. Steele once described that "R" next to his name as a "scarlet letter," complaining that being a Republican was hurting his electoral chances. 4. Steele was endorsed by Mike Tyson during his run for Senate. When Tyson, who used to be married to Steele's half sister, pleaded no contest to assault in Montgomery County in 1998, Steele was on hand to support him. 5. Steele defended former Gov. Bob Ehrlich's decision to hold a $100,000 fundraiser at a country club that did not allow non-white members, saying that the club's membership's policies were "not an issue" because "I don't play golf."<< <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/30/michael-steele-rnc-chairm_n_162589.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...589.html</a> Links to the news sources of the claims can be found at the link above.
Originally Posted By mawnck Observation: A certain, ahem, subset of the US now gets to deal with the fact that both political parties have an African American in a top leadership role. This could be interesting.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I think it's reactionary and a bit silly on the part of the GOP. When Hillary barely missed gaining the nomination, the GOP tossed up Sarah Palin, hoping maybe she would be an acceptable substitute. She wasn't. Now that Obama is effectively the head of the democratic party, the GOP comes out with their own version of 'obama-lite'. It seems like so much blatant pandering by a party without any particular core principles left - you want a woman? Here ya go. Well spoken black men are suddenly in vogue? We got one of those too!
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> 3. Steele once described that "R" next to his name as a "scarlet letter," complaining that being a Republican was hurting his electoral chances. << I can't fault him for that one.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>It seems like so much blatant pandering by a party without any particular core principles left - you want a woman? Here ya go. Well spoken black men are suddenly in vogue? We got one of those too!<< Ain't it the truth. And what's funny is, it's classic Dem behavior. "Oh, he's the War President? Well our guy has 5 purple hearts! Five! Count 'em!"
