This piece of journalism, not an opinion piece, deals with the RNC chairman race and offers amazing insights into the Republican psyche. Since this is not an opinion piece, I will change my method. I will just quote the highlights of that article, most of them being quotes from RNC members and affiliates.
"As they begin meeting in Washington today, many members of the Republican National Committee are focusing their ire against what they considered George W. Bush's anti-conservative policies and trying to dump the man he tapped to run the GOP."
Ok, so this is the crux of Republicans and the task they have to face. How do they seperate themselves from George W. Bush? And more importantly, isn't it a sad symbol that Mike Duncan currently leads the endorsement race? Are Republicans even able to change?
"Duncan "has never criticized Bush when the president was wrong," said Shawn Steel, an RNC member from California. "He's the agent of the establishment, and we need a change in personnel."
The ....establishment. So I guess there is a revolution going on in the RNC right now? We simply change the personnel, but keep the policies? Is that all that's needed to leave the establishment?
"In a further sign that the group wants to signal its displeasure with Bush policies, members are expected to adopt an unprecedented resolution attacking "the bloated bank bailout bill" that Bush championed and demanding that the committee "take all steps necessary to oppose bailouts of industries, individuals or governments.""
Or in other words, "Kill the economy! Crash the whole system! Ruin the middle-class! Get back to pre-New Deal times!"
"Curly Haugland, a party member from North Dakota, said his opposition to Duncan is tied to his selection by Bush rather than by the committee members. "Most of us strongly supported the Bush administration through the entire two terms, but in the last few months, this bailout and the abandonment of capitalism really kind of sealed it," he said."
So, let me get this right.... you supported Bush throughout the Iraq War, torture, Katrina, the economic collapse and all that...but you abandoned him because he tried to fix it? Are you schizophrenic??? Or did you want the economy to fail? It's really hard to get a different impression...
"Unlike Democrats, who last week appointed Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to the party chairmanship, Republicans usually select someone who is already a committee member, and some party members say they would choose only from among Anuzis, Dawson and Duncan.
For this reason, Blackwell and Steele, the two African American candidates, are considered unlikely to win, even as Republicans say they want to take steps to woo more black and Hispanic voters."
If I was really mean I would congratulate them on finding a reason not vote for a black RNC chair, but I actually agree here. A black RNC chair would be just tokenism. And a black president trumps it.
Riiiiight. Republicans lost the election because they weren't conservative enough... and Obama won because.... he was the real conservative.....
"RNC members, who include three representatives from each state, frequently criticize Bush's "compassionate conservatism," particularly his efforts to make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens."
Heh, and you want to woo minority voters? Well... go on, drop the word "compassionate", too...
"And while usually not naming Bush, all six RNC candidates have also emphasized the need for Republicans to push for lower federal spending. Blackwell has been the most explicit, likening Bush to former president Herbert Hoover for advocating policies that increased the size of government."
Boooooo!!! Herbert Hoover, Mr. Big government! Herbert Hoover and his New Deal programs, burn him!!! Stop it, yes, Herbert Hoover did enact a few acts that increased the size of government, but his focus was on voluntary actions. He hoped that the involvement of the government wouldn't be necessary. FDR increased the size of the government in his first 100 days more than Hoover did in the years 1929-1933.
""I think we're becoming a regional party," said John Feehery, who was a top adviser to then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). "It seems like we only want to appeal to Southerners. We seem too far to the right, and I think we need to have a better understanding of principles that appeal to people in all 50 states.""
I am against doomsday theories. Very rarely the worst that could happen actually happens. But yes, the danger is there... This schizophrenic kind of policy, being against Hoover and Bush - yet following their ideology, being against Mike Duncan - yet not finding an alternative, this delusional twist of truth, this believing in the own lies only works in the South where white people have developed a system of covert rebellion against the emancipation and Civil Rights Act. Social conservatism is keeping the midwest somewhat connected to the GOP, some libertarian streams of Republicanism are still attractive in the West, but seriously, there is just one candidate, Saul Anuzis, who represents a true willingness to expand the republican outreach. Michael Steele might count, too, but he is too moderate for some; The next chairman is probably going to be Duncan or Dawson. Duncan would be a sign of desperation and cluelessness. Dawson would be an emrabce of racist southern conservatism, mixed with evangelicalism and populism of the worst kind... good luck!
No comments:
Post a Comment