Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Why not the Social Democrat Party?Symmetrically, the Republicans would become the Anti-Social Republican Party.
I guess socialism must be pretty popular in America, if the most popular political party in America is socialist.
I don't know if it would work. I'm not at all convinced that "socialist" is a political negative anymore.As for opening up opportunities to mischaracterize Republicans... worrying about that is pointless, counter productive and everything else between. There is no waiting for opportunities, "our" opponents just make sh*t up no matter what, and taking responsibility for what other people do, that you have no control over, is dysfunctional and self-abusive.Worse, it's letting *them* control the narrative.
fls,LOL!I hold no quarter for the policies of this ridiculous Democrat Congress, and it's congenitally dishonest leaders, Nancy "I don't know nuthin' 'bout no torture, no suh" Pelosi, and Harry "(insert any lie you want here - He's going around the second and third time on most)" Reid.But as "socialist" as they themselves and their elected cohorts may seem or even actually be, the Democrat Party is still made up of mostly sincere (though misguided), hard-working Americans who love their country as much as most of us conservatives do.Name calling an entire group isn't usually profitable in any long term scenario.That said, Michael Steele may be a great guy and all, but he's not succeeding as the RNC head, and Republicans would be well advised to cut their losses asap.
"I guess socialism must be pretty popular in America, if the most popular political party in America is socialist."But that is the point of this, that the Democrat party leadership is moving the country quickly in that direction, and most Americans oppose it. So, by tying that party to the unpopular socialism, the Republicans are trying to strip off some of those who oppose socialism but supported the Democrats this last November.
Geez what a stupid idea.
Chairman Michael Steele has said that this "will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans,..."Sure, and that would be different from... when? With Obama's moves in the financial sector and especially regarding Chrysler I figure they're acting more like National Socialists, but hey, that's just me.
The focus of the story for me was that the RNC and its chairman are in the middle of some sort of cold war. The Republicans should be focusing their efforts on getting their own act together, maybe finding people who won't attack their own when questioned on national television.And this "Socialism" business, how many voters even know what Socialism is? It's not like the old days when we were fighting the Communists and people automatically thought Communist=bad.Listen Republicans, don't tell me why Democrats are bad, tell me why Republicans are good! Also, how are you going to get Democrats to cross party lines and vote Republican if you call them names?
"I guess socialism must be pretty popular in America"Yes, there are a lot of stupid, needy parasites out there, thanks to the efforts of Most Popular Political Party In America™ over the last 40 years or so.
"Listen Republicans, don't tell me why Democrats are bad, tell me why Republicans are good!"Why should they? All the Democrats did for the last 8 years is tell people how bad the Republicans are, and now they have complete control over the government.
I guess socialism must be pretty popular in America, if the most popular political party in America is socialist.Sure, if you assume they're doing what they promised to do before the election.
Yes, there are a lot of stupid, needy parasites out there, thanks to the efforts of Most Popular Political Party In America™ over the last 40 years or so.USA! USA!
"USA! USA!"Here's one of those stupid, needy parasites now!
Palladian : Why should they? All the Democrats did for the last 8 years is tell people how bad the Republicans are, and now they have complete control over the government.That wasn't the Democrats, that was Bush.
The most reliable Dem constituencies are best referred to as the taxeaters while the rest of us are the taxpayers.
Palladian : Here's one of those stupid, needy parasites now!You live in a country of Democrats, they can always outvote you. Better learn how to convert them 'cause calling them names only ensures you'll stay in the minority forever.
The Republican party only knows how to talk to married white Christians. Until it can make itself relevant to all of America it will continue to shrink.
Michael Steele is a cowardly ass. Fine, Mike, you don't like this proposal, but where are your proposals? Leadership means actually being a leader, not an analyst.
will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicansif you do this rethuglicans, it will probably cause dlhughley to retroactively call you nazis.
The Republican party only knows how to talk to married white Christians. Until it can make itself relevant to all of America it will continue to shrink.Against a party that only knows how to talk to unemployed ne're do wells? I like my chances. The electorate isn't much different than the one in 2000 that put the Republicans in power. It turned them out when they started acting like Democrats with the big deficits and all.
The next great waive of immigration to the New World will again come from European countries coming here to flee Socialism mixed with Sharia laws. So obama's party wil need to deal with that by finishing off capitalism here fast. Call them Smart-o-crats or Social Democrats...it matters not much while Obama has the smile going. We need Palin's smile going for us.
So BHO angers his base (incl Sully) w/ the decision to hold back the pictures. While at the same time the RNC makes a play to it's base (the professional conservatives, and their audience) that looks dumb to outsiders (and some insiders e.g. Alpha at Hotair).Maybe the Ds should start doing everything Michael Moore says, that would help to even things up a bit.
This country is neither "Democratic" or "Republican".At best, party-line Democrats make up 35% of the electorate, while party-line Republicans are about 30%.That leaves 35% of folks who are independent, though not necessarily moderate. There are persuadable independents who can pick from either main party, and there are the extremes who are either far to the left of the Dems, or far to the right of the GOP, and they reluctantly side with the major parties based on their level of disgust at the opposite viewpoint.That's what happened in 2008, those to the right of McCain stayed home, those to the left of Obama voted in droves hoping he'd prove to be even leftier than his campaign rhetoric would suggest he would be (so far, so good for those folks, despite the 'Obama is like Bush' moments).That also happened in 2004, Kerry tried to run as a moderate, so the far left stayed home, and Bush had enough good will with those to his right, that they held their nose and voted for him anyway.The GOP have to convince more people to win, and the Dems have to piss off more people to lose. Their 5% cushion compared to the GOP is a big advantage, but one that can easily be blown, and having firm control of the Senate and House will give them ample opportunity to shoot themselves in the feet, even while they're stuffing them in their mouths.Right now, it seems like the Democratic party is succeeding in pissing off the middle, while energizing their opposition. Moves like this by the GOP seem to be an attempt to take advantage of that, but it seems misguided and ham-fisted. Still, 2010 ought to be a lot of fun, and Pres. Obama could be a very weak incumbent in 2012.
I don't think Dems got complete control over the government because they told people for eight years how bad the Republicans were. I think the Dems got control b/c for the last eight years most voters thought the Republicans were demonstrably bad.
"will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans,"So does the sun rising.And, the same is true the other way. The only difference is that the Republicans have been too untalented to successfully do so. Not for a lack of trying, that I can tell.But that's beside the point. Steele is in the wrong business. If the parties were reversed, do you think the Democrats would tolerate their Chair taking his approach?
JAC: Socialism popularAmerica is no more a country with a Socialist heart in 2009 than it was a scary Theocracy in 2004. As stated above, the country swings. It swings baby.
At least Steele still has one supporter: "Hey Michael, I've been pleased as punch at your first 100+ days on the job. Your efforts to sabotage the GOP have been a stunning success. It was hilarious when you came right out of the gate proclaiming that women could make an "individual choice" on abortion. People were like, "woah!" Republicans were not amused, heh heh. Then you quickly followed up with your fantastic attack on Boss Limbaugh, telling a (black) host that Rush's words were "ugly" and "incendiary". Damn that was good! A solid 1-2 punch. Sure, you had to "apologize" and "clarify" almost immediately after both those incidents, but pretending to be sorry bought you time for further mischief, like saying Mitt Romney couldn't win because he was a flip flopper and could never get past the bigoted GOP base. I was saying the exact same thing a year ago! It's fantastic hearing an RNC chairman echo what we write at this site. Truly genius. But let's be serious here, I think they're on to you, and your days as a Republican chairman are numbered. They've taken away your spending powers, and the behind-the-scenes sniping is incessant. Your frequent apologies are buying less and less time. And while you've been pretty good about staying in character, getting caught laughing at Wanda Sykes' Palin joke sort of blew your cover. So you've done what you could. Get out now, before it gets too dangerous! There's at least one southern segregationists hovering around you like a vulture, and, well, I'd be a little nervous about that if I were you. Hugs and kisses, kos"
As stated above, the country swings. It swings baby.I thought that went out with bell bottoms. It's so hard to keep up.
the country swings. It swings baby.Not our country, silly --England. As "King of the Road" Roger Miller sang:Engelland swing like a pendulum do Bobbies on bicycles, two by two Westminster Abbey, the tower of Big Ben The rosy red cheeks of the little children
The Republican Party is in disarray. Nothing to offer, so it just says the other party is baaaad.Call it the Bush Legacy.
And The Repulican Party is the Old White, Southern, Anti Evolution party.But there is no branding necessary.
When are people going to start voting other political parties into office then?
Another spectacularly stupid idea via the Republican Party brain trust.I just hope they stick to their guns and do exactly what they propose.Are people here sure there isn't a Democratic mole running the show at the RNC?
"When are people going to start voting other political parties into office then?"That's not allowed, EC.
Oh good, I was just thinking that what this thread needs is 92 bloviating, ugly comments from frustrated panty-sniffer "Jeremy".
When are people going to start voting other political parties into office then?Not soon enough!
As for the "socialist" tag...which of these should be eliminated?1. Civil Service Retirement Systems2. Federal Employee Retirement Systems3. Railroad Retirement System4. Public Housing5. Rental Vouchers & Certificates6. Low Income Home Energy Assistance7. Social Security Programs8. Unemployment Insurance9. Temporary Disability Insurance10. Medicare11. Medicaid12. Medicare Prescription Drug Plan13. Supplemental Security Income14. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families15. Food Stamp Program16. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 17. National School Lunch Program18. School Breakfast Program19. United States Department of Agriculture 20.FDA21. FCC
"Not soon enough!"Oh, it was too late long, long ago...
Palladian - Which ones are you eliminating?
Jeremy Spoke In Class Today - Tell me which program keeps you alive and I'll tell you which program to cut.See what I did there? I wished Jeremy dead. We can all be as funny as Wanda Sykes!
"Palladian - Which ones are you eliminating?"All of 'em. I'm an anarchist, baby!
I think the leadership of the Democratic party would like to run a social democratic party. They may get their wish. There's no reason we can't have a social democratic welfare state with drastically reduced military spending. There's nothing impossible about that.It would mean the end of the American empire, and a lot of people are perfectly fine with that.Of course, the world would become a much more dangerous place, but a lot of Americans would not care as long as the world leaves us alone.And maybe they will.
"And maybe they will."For a little while. Until they start eying all our land.
I notice all of the local whiners just can't bring themselves to eliminate any of the social programs I provided.You all talk the talk, but when someone confronts you with your hypocrisy, you bail out.There's not one person on this thread who will not use (or already is using) many of the "social" programs I listed...but you just love bitching and whining about those who have the guts to admit they're necessary.If you're young enough, call mom and dad and tell them to discontinue their Medicare and Medicaid.
Who is Michael Steele?Trey
"I notice all of the local whiners just can't bring themselves to eliminate any of the social programs I provided."I said I want ALL of them ELIMINATED. Can't YOU READ?!
"Who is Michael Steele?"Either a professional wrestler or a gay porn actor, I'm not sure. Maybe both. I think he's black.
Can we eliminate you, Gene? Because I think that proposal would receive cross-party support around here.
In Jeremy-world there is only extremes... all or nothing. Keep it and fund through the roof or "eliminate" the program.What private charities do you support, Jeremy? Or are you just a hater? Huh? If those programs were not publicly funded, and your taxes were reduced to next to nothing (assuming you pay any)... which ones would YOU decide deserve to be funded with your very own voluntary contributions?
Hell, why not call them what they are, the Democrat Marxist Party?Steele is a total wuss.
Screw both parties. We need mixed member proportional government. That's where the tea parties ought to be going!
What private charities do you support, Jeremy?Jeremy, like all lefties, supports giving other people's money to causes he prefers. Look at the charitable records of the niggardly turds he and his ilk put in the WH.
"Of course, the world would become a much more dangerous place, but a lot of Americans would not care as long as the world leaves us alone.And maybe they will."Which is why we were attacked on 9/11.
>>>The Republican National Committee wants to rebrand the Democrats the "Democrat Socialist Party."<<<Why do Republic Party zealots leave out the "ic" in 'Democratic' when used as an adjective?Ah, I understand it's diminution by deliberately getting the name wrong. Just sounds silly to me.www.forgotten-ny.com
Synova said..."In Jeremy-world there is only extremes... all or nothing. Keep it and fund through the roof or "eliminate" the program."And you base this on what?The constant whine here is that "socialism" is horrible...yet when I list the many programs that everybody here will take part in one way or another...you come back with this bullshit?So...tell me which of the programs YOU would eliminate or decrease the funding.It's an easy question.
Jeremy,All except for 10(Medicare) and part of 19 (USDA). If you eliminate crop subsidizes, the USDA is likely understaffed. And, they have some agencies under them that are useful - in my case, I appreciate the Forest Service, which manages millions of acres of our land with a fairly meager budget (though BLM in Interior does it with even fewer people).
elHombre said..."What private charities do you support, Jeremy?"My wife and I donate to a variety of charities, give blood and I personally do volunteer work at a retirement home a couple of days a week.We like to refer to the work as being a good "liberal"
I'm with Palladian, eliminate all of those listed.But I would also recommend elimination of US Postal Service, Department of Education, Congressional Retirement Funding and United Nations Funding.Hey, this is fun!
"Jeremy, like all lefties, supports giving other people's money to causes he prefers. Look at the charitable records of the niggardly turds he and his ilk put in the WH.""Jeremy" isn't a lefty or a liberal, he's a deranged psycho who gets his rocks off by sowing misery and discord here. It doesn't matter what you believe or what you don't believe. "Jeremy" hates you. If you're not willing to play his abusive games, you'll be driven away. That's the goal. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with being a sociopath.
Bruce Hayden said..."Jeremy, All except for 10(Medicare) and part of 19 (USDA)."Okay, so you think there would be no problem (among others) in eliminating:1. Social Security Programs2. Unemployment Insurance3. Temporary Disability Insurance4. Medicaid5. Medicare Prescription Drug Plan6. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families7. Food Stamp ProgramCan I assume you do not have parents (or you you yourself) who use Medicaid or the drug benefits? Don't know anybody who has lost their job? No one you know is disabled. Know no families that have needs. And of course you know no one who might need food for their families.That about right?
Palladian - Okay, you've lost me here.Either cut back on the booze and drugs or take a fucking nap.
Lawgiver said..."I'm with Palladian, eliminate all of those listed."Two losers who evidently have no friends or family.It's easy to talk the talk, but we all know both of you are already taking advantage of some of the programs listed.You're both just to gutless to admit it.
But that is the point of this, that the Democrat party leadership is moving the country quickly in that direction, and most Americans oppose it. So, by tying that party to the unpopular socialism, the Republicans are trying to strip off some of those who oppose socialism but supported the Democrats this last November.I understand that the Republicans think that's what they're doing. What I'm pointing out is that by branding Democrats as socialists, they leave open the possibility that people will say, "Gee, socialism must be pretty good, if I voted for it." Now, I don't think people are going to think that, and I also don't think people are going to think what the Republicans want them to think. I just can't imagine that the public is as stupid as this RNC plan assumes they are.
"I just can't imagine that the public is as stupid as this RNC plan assumes they are."Why not, the DNC assumes that the public is even stupider and they've been pretty successful lately.
Two losers who evidently have no friends or family.It's easy to talk the talk, but we all know both of you are already taking advantage of some of the programs listed.As for family, I buried my Dad at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery 2 months ago. That's where I'll be buried someday. We both did our 20 in the military. My daughter's in the Air Force now, it's kinda a family thing. How about you asshole? How many years did you give to your country?I never said I didn't take advantage of any of those programs you moron. That wasn't your question.God, you're an idiot.
When are people going to start voting other political parties into office then?It won't matter. The easiest way to win elections is to change your principles to match what people want to hear. If Republicans all voted Libertarian one election the Republican party would disappear. But over time it would become another Democrat-lite party. A leader that can actually lead and sell his principles to the electorate is very rare. We haven't had one since Reagan.
I understand that the Republicans think that's what they're doing. What I'm pointing out is that by branding Democrats as socialists, they leave open the possibility that people will say, "Gee, socialism must be pretty good, if I voted for it."Except that's not actually true. They didn't vote for it. Obama is governing much further to the left than he campaigned.
Jeremy,I have 2 questions for you!# 1) are there any of the programs on your list (good listing by the way) that you would eliminate?After you answer, I'll ask question # 2 and we'll see where you truly are on the true political scale.
People love socialism.At first.They see that they can rob someone else legally, by a mere vote. And it works; suddenly their money becomes someone elses. OPM, it's so satisfying to get and spend.But.This starts a chain of events that inevitably ends badly. It has ended badly everywhere it's been tried. And so it will here.Democrats think they have discovered something very new, but it is the oldest government trick in the book: state-run theft. Once the majority of citizens decide they want to be subjects to their betters, they'll get it, good and hard.So, yes, the Democrats of today are socialists, and few people know why this is a bad thing anymore.Alot of us are going to find out very soon.
"A leader that can actually lead and sell his principles to the electorate is very rare."No one has any principles anymore. At least no one in politics.
ALERT, ALERT, ALERRT!And we have a WINNER!Here is the MOST STUPID writing by a NY Times reporter yet this year! Look at this:The 13th Amendment, which barred slavery, the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment were the first to give the federal government new powers. The nation had a large problem, eradicating the vestiges of slavery and racial inequality, and it knew that Congress needed potent tools to get the job done.`When the framers drafted these amendments, they were worried that Congress would have too little power to get the job done, not too much.`The FRAMERS? The FOUNDING FATHERS lived long enough into the last half of the 1800's to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments!?Either Adam Cohen is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of his readers or he is just incredibly stupid.Again, we have a WINNER!
"Synova said..."In Jeremy-world there is only extremes... all or nothing. Keep it and fund through the roof or "eliminate" the program."And you base this on what?"On the fact that you are demanding to know which whole departments should be eliminated.DUH.What do you think the word "eliminated" means? You never offer an option "or reduced", because you want to force a particular answer to serve your faulty argument.
I'd ELIMINATE the Department of Education.I'd also vastly reduce if not outright eliminate the welfare type programs because the Federal Government is the absolute guaranteed most wasteful and inefficient way of dealing with human problems. And at the same time that the actual help received costs multiples more than the value distributed, the presence of those programs conditions us to feel that our neighbors and our *families* are someone else's responsibility. These things are *bad* for us, actively *bad* for us as caring human beings.I'd keep the USDA.
I agree with Synova- the Dept of Education ballooned from $60 Billion per year to almost $100 Billion under Bush or 3% of fed budget. Get rid of it and use towards reducing the deficit.I dare you President Obama to do this!
Palladian:I have a republican acquaintance that insists that there are no consistently principled leaders. He likes to say, "It's all politics." By which, I'm assuming, he means that politicians are involved in the political machine and do not make decisions based on principle or moral standing rather, they feed the machine to get ahead (lobbyists and whatnot).I think that is a little bit of a cop-out argument.But this is a PERFECT example of it. What a phenomenal waste of time. What the Republicans are GREAT at is spin. But this is taking it a bit far, even for them / you. Whomever.
I'd seriously gut the USDA.
"But this is a PERFECT example of it. What a phenomenal waste of time. What the Republicans are GREAT at is spin."What are the Democrats GREAT at?
Republicans are not great at anything these days! Unless you count screw ups.
I think Dale needs to post that on about 10 other threads.All of them preferably on some other blog.
I'd say the Democrats are GREAT at winning elections.The people have spoken. The purpose of political parties is to win elections. It's not to talk on cable TV shows or protest in the streets or complain on the internet.
What are we great at. . . .Wasn't it you who suggested panty sniffing earlier?And winning this past election?
Democrats are great at cowing to the opposition and royally pissing off the people that worked hard to get them elected.
The people have spoken. The purpose of political parties is to win elections. It's not to talk on cable TV shows or protest in the streets or complain on the internet.No. The goal of a political party is not to win elections. That's supposed to be a means to an end. If your goal is simply to win elections you're not a party at all, but rather a political faction.
Department of Education, Department of Commerce, NEA, Selective Service.... There are even more programs that could be eliminated. Department of Energy could be massively reduced. EPA could be reduced and made more effective. Homeland security is a joke (and has a stupid name to boot.)Reducing the number of federal crimes would reduce the size of the justice department.
"Republicans are not great at anything these days! Unless you count screw ups."Amen brother. They've been good at screwing up for quite a while."CAPITALIZING":)You guys are definitely good at giving away capital, I just wish you were good at generating it."Democrats are great at cowing to the opposition and royally pissing off the people that worked hard to get them elected."Which is the only way they're going to get re-elected :)
JeREmY - Eliminate programs and show how heartless you are!!! (stomp stomp stomp)And therein lies the problem with socialism. Once a program is created to spend my money on and the residents of this nation become dependent on that program, the program can never be eliminated. Where does it end?
Yeah, parties are to win elections. You do not need parties to have candidates for office. You don't need them to govern. There is nothing in the Constitution about parties. They exist solely to win elections.Who they manage to get elected and what they do once in office does matter, obviously, but without the parties they would not be there.
What a great contribution in the nation's time of need.Name-calling being their chief contribution. Election's over, folks. Time to actually do the job.
Stop picking on Jeremy. You just make yourselves look stupid.He made extremely valid points all throughout the day and gave you the most entertainment you've had in a while.You all secretly LOVE when he shows up, it looks like to me, because he is intelligent, substantiates his arguments, provides links and information (which you ignore), and in general, seems like a hyper-smart and politically knowledgeable individual.I'm liberal. Let me have some of it. Go ahead. Swing away. But you have to be nice to me because I know how to get the skunk smell off of a dog.
Uh oh. I think that "Jeremy" has grown tits and a pussy.
Nice.I thought you were a smarty too until just then.Booooooorrrrring. You have to be much more clever than that.
Kevin Walsh asks:Why do Republic Party zealots leave out the "ic" in 'Democratic' when used as an adjective?Ah, I understand it's diminution by deliberately getting the name wrong. Just sounds silly to me. .A good question. They use ignorant and bad grammar because they think it conveys some unpopular meaning. I held a poll over at DailyKos for the best way to mangle the name "Republican." The winner? Republicants!As in "The Republicants are the party of No."
Federal organizations and spending need to be streamlined no doubt.Has there ever been a discussion here about contracting out mercenary soldiers? The pay difference etc. etc.I believe an extensive amount of this action was seen under a Republican administration. Talk about NO RESPECT for our soldiers.
My comments on this are here. Note especially the two links in the first paragraph to my contemporaneous posts about how the mistakes BHO's opponents were making were helping him win.Althouse's buddy Instapundit continues those winning ways to this day, supporting fringe loons standing on street corners with loopy signs rather than supporting attempts to engage BHO in debate about topics of interest to most Americans.
Woah. Got to reign in that cap lock. Sorry Palladian.
How about a trade? You can call our party the Democrat Socialist Party and we can call you the Klan of the Republic or perhaps...The Party of the Perpetual Minority...or the Party of Coats and Brains checked here...This entire "Democrat" party stuff is so lame. Adding "socialist" to it is just following Rush off the cliff.You know that old saying about how to get out of the hole your in ...stop digging...? The only way to ensure your minority status is to keep doin' that voodoo that youdo so well....ya'betcha!!! (speaking of which, where is Palincomparison when you need her?)
hdhouse,That was good stuff!
How about a trade? You can call our party the Democrat Socialist Party and we can call you the Klan of the Republic or perhaps...Good idea! Maybe then we can get Robert Byrd to come over to our side.
Byrd renounced his long-past KKK affiliations. However, the Republicants continue to employ the racist Southern Strategy. Granted, that's all you have at this point. That, and a deeply discredited ideology. 21% are Republicants!
"Byrd renounced his long-past KKK affiliations. "Just like BO renounced his association with Jeremiah Wright.
How are they the same?
How are they the same?.Byrd and Wright are both racists.
Post a Comment