 |
 |
   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.
|
   |
|
|
November 5, 2009
STEELE TO MODERATES: 'WE'LL COME AFTER YOU'.... Just yesterday, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was asked whether there's room in the Republican Party for a moderate like Olympia Snowe. "Absolutely," Steele said. "Welcome! Welcome! Because, you know why that's important? Because every footprint of this party is different from region to region, from county to county." Just 24 hours later, Steele has apparently changed his mind.
Steele wasn't specific on who, exactly, "we" are, but since he was speaking as the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Steele presumably means the party itself will "come after" moderates who stray from the party line. So, congratulations, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Charlie Crist -- you saw the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, you endorsed a proposal that prevented a wholesale economic collapse, and you were proven right. As a reward, your own political party is prepared to punish you. Democrats are desperate to tell voters that moderates are no longer welcome in the Republican Party. Michael Steele seems anxious to help. —Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)Comments
So if Collins and Snowe (and Crist if he wins) do an Arlen and jump to the Dems, that puts our Senate majority at 62 (or 63, depending). What an interesting prospect, not that it really has much chance of happening. But considering what happened in NY-23 it's not looking as farfetched as it did a week ago. Posted by: Curmudgeon on November 5, 2009 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINKIt's interesting how the right-wing is trying to demonize the word "moderate" the same as they did with the word "liberal" in the past. A moderate Republican appears to be someone who might like to vote sensibly from time to time, but generally votes along party lines anyway. Posted by: qwerty on November 5, 2009 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINKShorter Michael Steele on the subject of mild picante sauce: "NEW YORK MODERATE!?! Git a rope..." Posted by: David W. on November 5, 2009 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINKBut, but, I though bipartisanship was absolutely important?! Now being a moderate is a Bad Thing? This is so confuuusing. Oh, wait. Now I see. It's only Democrats who are responsible for being bipartisan, and by 'bipartisan', they mean 'agreeing to do what conservative wingnuts want.' Please, the next time David Broder opens his mouth about comity and bipartisanship, can someone stick Michael Steele in it to shut him up? Thanks. Posted by: biggerbox on November 5, 2009 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINKThe only "core principle" the GOP seems to have these days is "if the Democrats want it, we're agin it!" Posted by: davidNOE on November 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINKDemocrats are desperate to tell voters that moderates are no longer welcome in the Republican Party. Michael Steele seems anxious to help. Once again, we need to define our terms. Genuine pragmatists, low key temperaments, individuals who think a toned down capitalism makes sense, and so forth are genuine moderates. Corporate whores, who dance to K St., corporate doners, etc. are simply corrupt - and have no place in either or any party. Posted by: Proton on November 5, 2009 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINKSnowe et al. are insane to try to remain in that farce. I have no idea if the "really big tent" Democrats will work -- I can't help thinking of the PRI in Mexican history, but obviously that's a much different cultural/historical setting. :) But in any event, trying to build one big sane party has got to be better for the moderates than this mess. Starting a third, sane center-conservative party might be viable for them too, but we all know the deck's stacked to make the startup costs as high as possible. However, the one situation where it's viable might be if someone like Snowe runs as an incumbent against both looney-right and a Democratic opponents, assuming each opponent peels off votes in similar numbers. Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic on November 5, 2009 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINKFuggetabodit...Even Charlie Crist has been walking back his support of Obama and the stimulus the last few days as he is in mortal fear of the Palinistas. He was almost a likable Republican ....but he is going over to the dark side. All they are going to have left is an ultra right wing circle jerk Posted by: john R on November 5, 2009 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINKStarting a third, sane center-conservative party... -Equal Opportunity Cynic The Democrats are a center-conservative party. What this country really needs is a viable progressive party. Posted by: doubtful on November 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINKstimulating the economy is against Republican core principles. Nice to have that on record. Posted by: zeitgeist on November 5, 2009 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK@doubtful: Fine, good point. I don't care whether the new party is to the left or the right of present-day Dems; either way, having a home for the centrists frees up the other (non-GOP) party to tack to the left. I'm just sick of One Viable Party. Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic on November 5, 2009 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK"STEELE TO MODERATES: 'WE'LL COME AFTER YOU' " as Once again, we need to define our terms. Genuine pragmatists, low key temperaments, individuals who think a toned down capitalism makes sense, and so forth are genuine moderates. Corporate whores, who dance to K St., corporate doners, etc. are simply corrupt - and have no place in either or any party. Isn't part of the problem with the teabagging crowd's credibility that they pretend to be basing their "movement" on the second grouping (and on a general antipathy to paying taxes), but the only coherent and cohesive criticism they can blurt out relates to social issues like abortion and equal marriage? Posted by: shortstop on November 5, 2009 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINKstimulating the economy is against Republican core principles. Nice to have that on record. Herbert Hoover didn't believe in stimulating the economy either. He thought the market should be allowed to work its magic. Roosevelt, I believe, disagreed. Posted by: Pug on November 6, 2009 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINKPost a comment
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 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
