 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
May 21, 2009
THE RNC AND ITS RESOLUTIONS.... Republican National Committee members invested quite a bit of time and energy recently on a resolution that would beg the Democratic Party to change its name. The more the RNC pushed this, the sillier the party appeared. Yesterday, the party backed off a little, approving a merely foolish resolution, as compared to a blisteringly foolish resolution.
In other words, this isn't really a win for "moderation" at the RNC. Indeed, the time invested in this "debate" among committee members only helped magnify the party's difficulties. Given all of the problems Republicans are facing, who thought it would be a good idea for prolonged debate about urging the majority party to name itself the "Democrat Socialist Party"? Is that really the best use of the RNC's time right now? As Josh Marshall noted the other day, "I haven't seen a nugget that so perfectly typifies the current GOP's mix of ideological obscurantism and dingbat sloganeering as this." In 2005, after Democrats saw Republicans take control of the White House, Senate, and House by wide margins, Howard Dean took control of the DNC and put a 50-state strategy in place. Four years later, Republicans saw Dems take control over the same institutions, and began a lengthy debate over use of the phrase "Democrat Socialist Party." Nothing says "comeback" quite like a pointless argument over a name-calling resolution that wouldn't accomplish anything. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)Comments
"Sometimes, I guess there just aren't enough rocks." ~Forrest Gump Posted by: MissMudd on May 21, 2009 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINKOne unintended consequence of Republican fecklessness is that the Naderite "Republicrat" argument-- that there's no difference between the two parties-- is disproved. Republicans are different from Democrats-- publicly, openly, and excruciatingly worse in just about every possible way. Posted by: MattF on May 21, 2009 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINKWhile we're at it, why not give more appropriate monikers to some of the commie rags that openly criticize our flag? But who trusts them - they're members of the GOP: Gay Old Pansies. Posted by: richard.greenslade on May 21, 2009 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINKI am waiting for the Republicans to hold their breath or go on hunger strikes. Posted by: jen f on May 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINKIs that really the best use of the RNC's time right now? Yes, si, dah. Posted by: hopeful on May 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINKMost Republicans including those who consider themselves to be in exalted positions do not what socialism means. My ignorant brother-in-law thinks that it is communism. What dolts! Posted by: capalistpig on May 21, 2009 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINKThe Republican National Committee backed away Wednesday from a resolution that officially called Democrats the "Democrat Socialist Party," but instead voted to condemn Democrats for what it called a "march toward socialism." Does this mean I don't get to introduce my motion at the next DNC meeting to officially call Republicans the "National Socialist Party"....? Posted by: Stefan on May 21, 2009 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINKDoes this mean I don't get to introduce my motion at the next DNC meeting to officially call Republicans the "National Socialist Party"....? Go ahead; it's not like they'll get the reference. If you do this, they'll just loudly protest their innocence of the crime of socialism. Posted by: shortstop on May 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINKThis is a nitpick, but: In 2005, after Democrats saw Republicans take control of the White House...by wide margins... The GOP won the White House by 2.46% of the popular vote in 2004. Hardly a 'wide margin.' Posted by: low-tech cyclist on May 21, 2009 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINKDon't forget, Steve: they invested an awful lot of their native stupidity on this 'resolution' too. They can't possibly have stupidity in such unlimited quantities that they can afford to just throw it away so profligately, can they? Posted by: azportsider on May 21, 2009 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINKWho is this Howard Dean of whom you speak? Posted by: No Not For You on May 21, 2009 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINKThey were pretty successful with that "Democrat Party" thing. I think they just thought since they did it once, they could do it again. The "Democrat Party" thing was viral, though. Time for a contest to rename them. I'm thinking Republican Corporatist Party. Posted by: Cal Gal on May 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINKIt reminds me of a bunch of nine year olds sitting up in a tree house talking about how dumb they think girls are and making hand lettered signs saying "no girls allowed." Posted by: JohnK on May 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
