Top House GOP Recruiter Wants Pro-Choice Candidates

Wow, when I read this article on Huffington Post today, I wonders did the GOP finally get the memo?!! Yes, this is the way to make your party relevant in the 21^st century guys; elect republicans with “cross-over” appeal, or what I like to call some of my GOP friends, ”Cappuccino Republicans” . The day of the Rock-Ribbed, Raving Bachmann-Limbaugh like Republican should be left in the 20^th century and the G.W. Bush-Cheney eras. Our country deserves a government of the people, both Democrat and Republican thinkers, and not the party of the zealots.

I was so happy to hear that California Representative Kevin McCarthy, the chief recruiter for House Republicans, said he wants his party to select candidates based less on ideology and more on their chances of winning. The goal, he said, is to seek out prospects who are ethnically diverse, female, less partisan and even supportive of abortion rights. (If we could get them to throw in some who backed civil rights, climate change, torture, the stimulus package and immigration reform…Woo, I might believe you, but what about the base?

I was also pleasantly surprised that Eric Cantor told Bloomberg, The essence of being a Republican is the belief in free markets, the belief in individual responsibility, and the belief in the faith of the individual. This is what our party is about." Wow, can I hold you accountable for that sentiment Mr. Cantor, as I know Rush, the Neo Cons, Religious Rights, etc will totally NOT go for such a GOP.

In addition to these august figures of the party let me not leave out NRSC Chairman John Cornyn, who said:

Republicans have to "get away from this attitude that people who disagree 20 or 30 percent of the time somehow are not welcome in the Republican Party, particularly if we're going to maintain our relevance and grow our numbers."

Mr. Cornyn did you mention this to Dick Cheney, who chose Rush Limbaugh, who carries the ultra right-wing party line, over a person who disagrees with you 20-30 percent of the time, Colin Powell? What about Michelle Bachmann, Ann Coulter, David Vitter, etc… What will they say? Do you not fear a backlash, because it seems this is a Johnny come lately, or I want to be like Obama ( Yes, I am making a pun of I want to be like Mike) and the Democrats strategy?

I have a sincere doubt that ultra-right elements in your party are going to let you do it, or allow you to push such candidates down their throat with the vague threat “ we can let the Democrats keep the majority... they are crazy, be afraid, be very afraid and please vote for us…

Come on, guys you had a majority for 6 years and two wars, a economic recession bordering on a Great Depression, trade deficits that make us less safe, and a tainted image abroad because you chose to torture ( as justified by Cheney) of America the Beautiful….and I should be afraid of a Democrat majority. I just don’t see it, especially with Bachmann, Newt, and Uncle Dickey spewing their collective swill on the airwaves..

Making the Band: A New Supreme Court Justice

Last week Justice Souter of the United States Supreme Court announced that he was leaving the Court at the end of the current term. It is obvious that choosing of a new Supreme Court Justice is one of most far-reaching decisions of any president, because its effects to Americans and the way we perceive what law is and how law is applied. However, Justice Souter’s announcement has caused a furor of activity on the Left and Right flanks of the social, political, and legal landscapes, as his leaving may signal that other older justices are soon to follow. Therefore, the possibility that President Obama could have 2 more appointments to the high Court makes this choice even more important, as it will reveal clues to his legal philosophy as to the path American law will follow: liberal, moderate, or conservative; which path will he choose.

The propaganda machines have begun and it’s the same old arguments just laced with sexism, and other darker aspects of society. For example, Jeffrey Rosen’s hatchet job on Sonia Sotomayor in The New Republic , which was subsequently debunked by truth. Later, Rosen mounted an on-line defense, declaring that his purpose had only been to challenge Sotomayor's judicial temperament on the bench. Judge Sotomayor’s temperament—this is your best shot?

That is the most stupid and ill-conceived argument I have ever heard, and is lacking in any legal basis that would make a judge unfit to serve on the Court. Mr. Rosen, take it from a guy with a Juris Doctor and Masters of Laws, it is not the temperament of the judge or the fact that she asks tough questions, but the quality of the legal reasoning in his/her decisions. If a judge asks a tough question, it God-given sign the judge is carefully considering your argument and weighing the law and the facts of your particular case, and as a good attorney, you had better be able to answer her with sound legal reasoning. It is thinking like yours that caused the country to suffer through faulty right wing, strict constructionist legal reasoning, and Justices that refuse to ask even one question on the high Court.

My advice is to choose a justice that writes like Justice O’Connor, with the reasoning of Justice Marshall, and understood that we are in the 21^st century not the late 18^th, instead of the ramblings of Federalist Five.

What is puzzling is the stupor of creativity exhibited by the GOP in their attacks of late, its 24/7 cultural wars. I mean, if the GOP wants a real debate stop the cultural war and talk legal reasoning of decisions and not temperament. This could give them a good platform for a middle of the road judge, instead of a ultra left/right fight. I know they have tried the activist judge bit, but it is time for a new argument. The answer is simple really, a cultural war gets you votes.

For the extended version of this post on who needs to be the next Supreme, please check out my other site, The Political Jaguar

Limbaugh Over Powell ? Swine Before Pearls ?: Is this Last Call for Moderate Republicans ?

Its official the GOP is culling the Moderate arm of their party, and giving them a last call to get in line with the ultra right Neo-Con and Religious Right arms of the party or get out. This is going to be my first post, in an ongoing series on the culling of the Moderate arm of the Republican Brand.


Folks, this has been going on for the last couple of months. First, with the slap down of Michael Steel and elevation of Rush Limbaugh, then forceful inclusion of a right wing social agenda in the New America initiative by the Religious Right. Lastly, the characterization of Meghan McCain’s as a RINO encouraging the party to be more inclusive and evolve its appeal, and today the statements of John McCain in an interview with This Week.

Wow, Last Call for Moderates in the GOP!!! The GOP is telling you blatantly they do not want you, this is the last call for moderates in your party. Wake up.


The last call went out this Sunday, when the Grand old Gang rolled out the New Faces of the GOP compromised of Newt Gingrich, John McCain, and Dick Cheney in a blitzkrieg of the Sunday morning talk shows as follows:



On Face the Nation


Cheney was in rare form even for his post White House antics championing the call to double –down on 20th century conservatism’s core principles for the 21st century United States by proposing a weird mix of neo-con doctrine and reverse Darwinism. Cheney’s stance of not moderating the party message or values reached new heights as he professed uncertainty that Colin Powell was still a Republican. In Cheney’s “you’re either for us or against us” Stalinist worldview, Powell’s endorsement of Obama was an indication of his loyalty and his interest. Although such conclusions fits with the general characteristics of the GOP of either get in line or get the hell out, I was troubled by the inclusion of the words loyalty and interest. Similarly, I became even more troubled when Cheney definitively choosing Rush Limbaugh, who asserted that Powell’s endorsement of Obama as racially motivated instead of an objective assessment of the suitability of the candidates, as a real Republican. Therefore, Cheney chose the blind allegiance of an obese chicken hawk, that spouts the most sexist, racially charged, bizarre trash imaginable as a real Republican.


Wow, you gotta admire a man that never makes a mistake, choosing a loud mouth, divisive talk show host, over a war hero and general in the cut of Generals Eisenhower and Marshall, because you think he’s disloyal. In truth, Powell loyalty to his party is unquestionable, however, he was concerned that the party was growing too narrow in scope and the tent was only big enough for the few. Cheney you have just proven him right. Oh well, I guess it’s your Stalinist resilience of having no regrets for anything like torturing people, shooting a friend in the face, soldiers dying, the people of New Orleans when you only came for a photo op, and losing a voice of moderation that could have helped your party into the current century.


Ok, Republican moderates do you hear bell, Uncle Dickey giving you the last call for the Moderates; he stacking the chairs folks!! Last Call for Moderates in the GOP!!!

The final thing that got my attention today was an interview with John McCain on the show, This Week, it was almost painful for me to watch, but let me give you the run down.


This Week- Senator John McCain:


The onslaught continued on This Week, where John McCain, the Good Soldier fell on his sword, saying that he did not communicating with the American people in the 2008 election, and declaring he did not want to moderate, and that GOP core principals were as good today in the 20th century, as they were in the 20th century. McCain laid the blame on the former administration that had become too loose with spending betraying the principals of the party and costing them the last two elections. The Good Soldier said that the GOP must adjust to the 21st century in communications, in values, in goals, in all the things that American people want without betraying its core principals and be more open to issues such as gay marriage.


Ok, a few points, if I may :


(1)John they hate you, and no matter what you do they do not trust you because by your statement, you are a “Moderate” that means not a true Raving Republican—they do not see you as a real member of the GOP. Have you not been listening to EL Rushbo’s disrespect to you and your family since the 2000 election to the present, the 2008 primaries even when you won the nomination until Bob Dole shut him up? Look at how they slapped down Michael Steele; he tried (poorly) to modernize the party speaking in hip-hop slang instead of like a professional and chairperson of a national party. The Neo-Con Commander, El Rushbo shut him down, and stripped him of any semblance of authority.


(2)Your argument for modernizing communication, values, and goals is ludicrous as it would mean giving up the coveted far right social agenda, which gives you the values voters of the South, the heart of your party. I truly doubt the Neo-Con’s and Religious Right are going to give up their opposition to Gay Marriage, despite the current trend; abortion no matter if the woman is raped or her life in danger, and stem-cell research. Did you not hear Newt on Faux? Neither do I believe for a minute the Neo-Cons are willing to give up a failed doctrine of preemptive war, illegal immigration, opposition to affirmative action, unions, and most women’s issues. History has shown us that the GOP is not the party of openness and inclusion, nor is it the party of “No”; it’s the Party of “Hell to the F--- No” More inclusive; the nation heard that song before from the “Compassionate Conservative” eight years ago.


(3)You said it yourself they betrayed those core principals of limited government, growth policies, and a strong defense. However, you also forgot to mention the right-wing social agenda, which you know in your heart you disagree with Senator--they don't trust you John.


Oh well, this is a man who loves his Party, and the principals its stands for; I truly feel bad at the treatment of the Good Soldier. Anyway, the new "Cheney-Limbaugh" real Republican was showcased on Fox News with Chris Wallace by Newt Gingrich.

Faux (Fox) New: Newt Gingrich


Newt got things going with a Bush era “shock and awe” maneuver on Faux News that should shock and awe many for its misrepresentation of facts, and Molotov-like rhetoric of modern-day McCarthyism for the idea of investigating the Bush administration for torture. McCarthyism you say Newt, where when Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) called for the media to investigate members of Congress for perceived anti-American bias. This is straight out of the witch-hunts, and slanderous accusations of communism and communist collaboration of the McCarthy era, yet Newt was silent to such a relevant example of McCarthyism. Instead Newt chose to do a raving Bachmann.


However, not to be out performed, Newt decided to out-Bachmann the Bachmann, by not only doubling up his rhetoric but also twisting the facts to the point of creating an alternate reality where accusing the Democrats as follows: "They have had control since January 2007," he said. "They haven't passed a law making water boarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law," is plausible.

In reality, the Senate in February 2008 voted on the Intelligence Authorization Bill, which would have outlawed the use of water boarding. President Bush vetoed the measure.


Poor Newt it must suck to be out of power. Nevertheless, if we go by Cheney-Limbaugh paradigm for real Republicans facts are irrelevant, ballistic rhetoric that makes no sense, and people flee the party is tolerable, because in the end only loyalty matters.


Last Call for Moderates Republicans the bar is closing soon!!

Fried Chicken & Oprah

I am writing today from the window of the Barber Shop wondering about the future of the civil rights movement in the twenty-first century. So here is my question folks:

Have we overused the charge of racial discrimination to the point where it is watered down, and can be ignored entirely?

Here is why I am asking , I was reading “The Field Negro Blog” about the KFC Chicken incident. Field was in rare form with his commentary on the incident and I thoroughly enjoyed the post. However, when Field said that some reporters had labeled the refusal of people to leave until they got their chicken as “civil rights-era protest”, I was more than bothered. Field, ever the political satirist, went on to say; “CIVIL RIGHTS ERA PROTEST OVER SOME DAMN CHICKEN? So this is how a revolution starts: Promise a bunch of chicken loving A-murder-cans freebies and not deliver. Black folks are crying “fried chicken racism.” Come on field, it is racism. I bet if they had freebies at Starbucks they wouldn’t run out. Can’t you see it field, it’s the man trying to keep us chicken lovers down.”

Wow, I am truly speechless is this the what its come down to Chicken and Civil Rights?

Its scary to imagine that MLK and all the members of SNCC, CORE, etc got their heads beat in, dogs sicked on them, or were killed for us to misuse their struggles for the right to vote, desegregate lunch counters, hotels, etc and be seen as a human being--for "chicken".

Here the question, if African-Americans are ready to make accusations of racism over a piece of “Chicken,” grilled or fried, have we become the kids who cried wolf? Have we overused the charge of racial discrimination to the point where it is watered down, and can be ignored entirely? I wonder about this because if we have reached that point what happens to those who are facing real racial discrimination, like the Jenna 6?

Edit this entry.