This Story Linked Without Commentary Because It Speaks For Itself
Tweet
GOP drops effort to rename Democrats ‘Socialist’
Republicans on Wednesday abandoned an effort to label their opponents the “Democrat Socialist Party,” ending a fight within the GOP ranks that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice.
Supporters of the resolution asking the Democratic Party to change its name instead agreed to accept language urging Democrats to “stop pushing our country towards socialism and government control.”
2004 flashback:
When Rove entered the room, everyone stood up to congratulate him and shake his hand. Washington journalism has become a kind of Cult of the Consultant, so the energy in the room was a lot like it might have been if Mickey Mantle had come striding into the clubhouse after knocking in the game-winning run in the World Series. Rove was pumped.
Before taking questions, he removed a folded piece of paper from his pocket and rattled off a series of numbers that made clear how he wanted the election to be seen: not as a squeaker but a rout. “This was an extraordinary election,” Rove said. “[Bush won] 59.7 million votes, and we still have about 250,000 ballots to count. Think about that—nearly 60 million votes! The previous largest number was Ronald Reagan in 1984, sweeping the country with 49 states. We won 81 percent of all the counties in America. We gained a percentage of the vote in 87 percent of the counties in America. In Florida, we received nearly a million votes more in this election than in the last one.” Rove was officially there to talk about the campaign, but it was clear he had something much bigger in mind. So no one missed his point, he invoked Franklin Roosevelt’s supremacy in the 1930s and suggested that something similar was at hand: “We’ve laid out an agenda, we’ve laid out a vision, and now people want to see results.”
66 Responses to “This Story Linked Without Commentary Because It Speaks For Itself”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Secondary to the story: Nothing bothers me worse than the usage of “Democrat Party” vs “Democratic Party.”
Should be be calling the Republican Party the “Republic Party.”
Bugs the hell out of me.
That’s why they do it, Joe. Because today’s GOP is the party of those same kids whose idea of biting wit was to either call you names or, barring even that much imagination, mispronounce the name you already had.
The GOP is run by seven year-olds.
Joe, Spider, I trust you were equally vocal about those who used the terms “Republican’ts” and “Rethuglicans…”
J.
Actually, Jay, they’re “Criminals”, not Republicans, Republican’ts, Rethuglicans, or my usual favourite, Banana Republicans.
We were ruled over, for the past 8 years, by the Criminal Party, who did their level best to destroy everything honest hardworking Americans hold dear—and they came pretty damn close to succeeding. Now, the Criminals are trying to foment rebellion because their sensibilities went into prophylactic shock over the Majority’s choice of a *black* man for President.
The conspiracy theories couldn’t scare away voters or convince them the geriatric Criminal nominee and his pet bimbette were better selections, so they’re resorting to “ZOMFG, they’re gonna take away our guns! Force all our wimmun-folk to have Aborshuns! Turn us into Pinko Commie Watchamacallits!”…without a second’s thought that Congressional Dems have pretty much given up on Gun ‘control’ legislation for the time being, and laugh off the other 2 points as poor attempts at humour.
And the RNC’s leader can’t even be trotted out as the poster-boy for the Party either….I have no idea what he stands for, and quite likely, not even he really knows either. Oliver can wax poetic about his record in politics (I remember Donna Edwards’s run and victory
), the Criminals wanted a Black poster-boy to stand up, shut up, and look pretty to draw in minorities, while conveniently forgetting YouTube faithfully holds onto all their ‘macaca moments’….for everybody to see and understand the reality that Criminals are Criminals.
Onward and downward…..keep digging mate! One day you may dig yerself from your ideological hole–or you’ll have to learn the Aussie Accent…
Jay Tea – I eagerly await your link to the story where the Democratic Party passed a resolution urging the Republicans to rename themselves “Rethuglicans” or “Republican’ts”.
Because otherwise, I really don’t see how you have a valid point. It’s not *some members of the Republican party* calling the Democrats childish names. It’s *the party establishment*. I can understand how someone whose political party answers to a talk show host might get the two confused, but please do try to pay attention.
Hooper already pointed out your false equivalency, JT. As for me, the best I can do is simply not use the epithets myself.
What do you make of the underlying charge of socialism?
Capitalism is the private control of the means of production and private control of the cost of labor.
Socialism is the public control of the same often with an emphasis on central control or planning.
Historically one has done much better than the other.
A rose by any name, etc. etc. etc.
No GOP members are familiar with the words “..provide for the common welfare,..” so socialism is a dirty word to them.
And my recent favorite for the Poopyhead Party is Republiscum.
You’re missing the point, AO, or just willfully ignoring it.
Whether or not the GOP has any cogent arguments to make is completely undercut by their current tendency to behave like petulant children.
Thanks, “Matthew Hooper”, for pointing out right winger “Jay Tea’s” false equivalency argument. It’s a full time job.
As for right winger “Amused Observer”, it’s possible they are old enough to still be mad that the British lost in the 18th century.
The Republican Royalist Party is mad at America’s socialized fire department and socialized roads and socialized police department and socialized water department.
Right wingers like “Amused Observer” have been selling out America every time they get in power.
If it were up to right wingers like “Amused Observer” you wouldn’t be able to drive to work without paying a different private road owner for every street you drove on. You’d have to pay for a private security instead of being protected by public Police Officers. If your house was on fire, “Amused Observer” would let it burn down if you hadn’t paid up your local protection racketeers and didn’t have the proper “fire insurance mark”. And a gallon of water would cost more than a gallon of gas.
Yep, if right wingers like “Amused Observer” were in charge, we’d be living in a Libertarian Paradise.
What do you make of the underlying charge of socialism?
I think it is astoundingly ignorant, much like your post.
Matthew, when Oliver first posted on this, I said it was stupid. And it still is.
Buzz, I’ll cheerfully admit I’m not familiar with that phrase. Where is it from?
Please don’t say from the Preamble of the Constitution. My copy says “PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general Welfare.”
Here’s a hint, Buzz. They are NOT synonyms.
Wilbur: what do you think that people in the banking, auto, health care, or credit card industries would say about the charge that our government is turning socialist?
J.
Obama wants the wealthy taxed at 40 percent. Eisenhower taxed them at 91 percent. Nixon and Ford taxed them at 70 percent. Cons pretend the country was founded in 1981
You mean the people who yammered on for years about how the magical free hand of the market would solve everything than ran crying to the government when they fucked everything up? Those people?
Barack Obama isn’t a socialist. He’s a capitalist, but he – like most Americans – also believes that our economy shouldn’t be allowed to plunge into the ocean because some corporate fat cats didn’t know the right way to run their businesses.
“Historically one has done much better than the other.”
I agree. Canada is a much better place to live than America right now.
he … believes that our economy shouldn’t be allowed to plunge into the ocean because some corporate fat cats didn’t know the right way to run their businesses.
Open Hearts. Open Minds. Fair-Minded Words. Surely we can discuss this without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
“We’ve laid out an agenda, we’ve laid out a vision, and now people want to see results.”
That going to be true for the Dems now.
SaveFarris, what convinces you that Obama can run those businesses any better? Where on his resume’ does he show any particular aptitude or interest in private enterprise?
I’m not saying that the people who ran those businesses into trouble were great. I’m just saying that, as Bill Cosby said, “you don’t challenge WORSE.”
J.
Roads, Police force, Mail delivery, Clean Water, Non-Toxic Food, 40 hour work week, Over time pay, Medicines that actually work (Though on 20-30% of people but still.) SSI, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard.
Yeah Socialism really sucks.
Jay Tea -
Are you asserting that Barack Obama is personally serving as the CEO of those companies? It might come as a novel concept, but Obama does know how to delegate these sort of things.
“Not great” is an understatement. In fact, I’m a little puzzled about why you would find Chrysler and GM’s suffering as a consequence of asking for massive government loans offensive. Shouldn’t there be dire consequences for asking the government for a handout? “Moral hazard”, remember?
Perhaps you’d like to see the money handed out without strings? Or try to make ends meet in an economy where Chrysler and GM have crashed? I assure you, the unemployment rate would be much higher, and consumer confidence far lower. I suppose you could argue that, in the long run, the economy would be healthier – or at least, more ideologically pure. Hoover made the same argument, as I recall. However, people need to eat *now*. Economies don’t wait.
What do you make of the underlying charge of socialism?
It’s bullshit. Next question.
Grumpy, a good chunk of what you cite as examples are Constitutionally-mandated duties of the federal government. So of course there’s no argument there.
Matthew — Obama doesn’t have to trouble himself with the details of running the companies. He’s a “big picture” guy. Let others get their hands dirty.
He just fires the CEO (although he’s still on the payroll, because Obama hasn’t decided whether or not to honor the guy’s contract re: severance) and tells them to get rid of dealers, make more environmentally-sensitive cars, stop selling the big money-making vehicles, rewrites the bankruptcy code…
But he needn’t get too involved in the details.
J.
I said that the labeling was stupid. I never said it was inaccurate.
The best lesson I ever learned came from a creative writing class. The teacher’s credo was “show, don’t tell.”
Don’t call the Democrats socialists. Instead, just keep citing example after example of how they’re acting just like socialists (and they are legion just in this last year alone), and let people draw their own conclusions.
J.
Jay Tea,
But it’s socialism.
And according to cons socialism is EVIL!
Unless there is an acceptable amount of socialism, to cons. And in that case it’s not about socialism is not evil and it’s really a discussion about where to draw the line. If that’s true lets take the discussion in that direction and stop with the silly little game of name calling and talk.
Failing that let the inevitable flame war begin.
Grumpyman, you do realize there’s a difference between the government running the Navy, Air Force, & Fire Departments vs. the government running GM, Bank of America, and Delta. At least, I hope you do.
SaveFarris,
Yes I do but I also know it is socialism, I hope you know that as well.
As I said before it is what it is. Now lets talk about where to draw the line. Unless what is really cons agenda is fling shit like a monkey.
Government IS a socialist construct to deny that is to deny reality. The real question, the real discussion is not weather or not it good or bad the adult conversation is how when and where the government dose and dose not intercede.
Failing to admit to those simple facts and move on to an attempt have a meaningful discussion is why I pay about as much attention to the “Tea-baggers” as I do my mentally slow neighbor that wants nothing more than to play fantasy-football with his boxers on his head.
Peace Be With you.
Notable con hero and socialist: Richard Nixon, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Regan..etc…
Every stinkin’ government official and american politician espouses some form of “socialism” in thier philosphy, conservatives too. The real problem is that rather than identifying Obama’s policies as different and giving an alternative(hem hem.. Jay Tea. Surely this is what you mean by show and not tell. Most certianly Republican ideas, and new ones at that would SHOW that democrats are brrr…”Socialists!”) Republicans just can’t drop the word “liberal” and make it evil anymore. They tried and it just doesn’t have the same penache with the American public anymore. People realize that these code words are ways of demonizing and not very serious in terms of dealing with policy that effects average American’s. You can’t say that people who believe in government are inherently socialist just as much as you can’t immediately call someone who believes in a capitalist system is a facist. I think Oliver said this once…”Alright, move over and let the grown ups handle this”.
Here’s the breakdown. When your company makes money, you keep it, and you are a capitalist.
When your company loses money and you beg the government for some, you are a socialist.
Most of the big banks are now run by very wealthy socialists, as well as the two big car companies.
The difference is as simple as profit and loss. You’ll note that the conversion comes only after the profit taking ends, so the money does not have to be returned when the system is converted from capitalist to socialist.
I find the example of free market enterprise as superior to Government planning to be amusing. Most proponets point to sucessful corperations as being effecient. They seem to forget the 80+ percent of new buisnesses that go bancrupt in the first five years.
“Show, don’t tell.”
Agreed. And after years of telling us how their policies would make America great and prosperous, we gave the GOP eight years to show us how. The results we were shown do not jive with what we were told.
So now the Republicans are back to telling us that their policies can fix the very problems that they caused in the first place.
But then again, I forget. None of America’s problems were the GOP’s fault. And even if they were, they’re done apologizing for them.
Please don’t say from the Preamble of the Constitution. My copy says “PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general Welfare.”
Here’s a hint, Buzz. They are NOT synonyms.
Now, Jay Tea, what did we tell you about this bullshit?
Um… that the Constitution is a “living document” and means whatever the powers that be want it to mean?
Sorry I forgot that lesson, fafaroo.
J.
Sorry I forgot that lesson, fafaroo.
Yeah, figured. So you learn it for yourself this time, let me ask you:
Where else in the Constitution does the the phrase General Welfare appear and what verb precedes it?
“We’ve laid out an agenda, we’ve laid out a vision, and now people want to see results.”
Oh we saw results, alright, Karl.
That’s why they do it, Joe. Because today’s GOP is the party of those same kids whose idea of biting wit was to either call you names or, barring even that much imagination, mispronounce the name you already had.
Kind of like our friend Dennis, huh?
Joe, Spider, I trust you were equally vocal about those who used the terms “Republican’ts” and “Rethuglicans…”
Funny, I don’t remember Dr. Dean pushing that at the DNC meetings, do you?
“We’ve laid out an agenda, we’ve laid out a vision, and now people want to see results.”
That going to be true for the Dems now.
We already are.
Grumpy, a good chunk of what you cite as examples are Constitutionally-mandated duties of the federal government. So of course there’s no argument there.
Because the founders were a bunch of pinkos.
Historically capitalism has provided much more prosperity than socialism. I see we have more than a few socialists here and many more who are a more than a little confused about what socialism means.
Oliver,
Perhaps Obama is a capitalist but his policies are pushing the means of production and the control of labor out of private hands and into public ones. His proposals on health care are much the same. Much as you and rest may hate to admit it that is textbook socialism.
If the man is half as bright as you think he is then he must realize that the immense amount of debt he proposes to undertake cannot be paid for by taxing only the rich. There simply aren’t enough of them. So I ask you is he as smart as you think he is or is he lying about who is going to be paying for his grandios schemes?
Fafaroo,
The word welfare in Section eight doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Oh, that’s right. I forgot about that, fafaroo. Must’ve been stopped by my Stupid filters.
Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
“common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…” if EVER there was an argument for a “collective” interpretation and not an individual interpretation anywhere in the Constitution, it’s there.
But that doesn’t change the fact that Buzz’s quote was, on its face, wrong. And wrong in a way that very conveniently served his argument.
Not that I’m saying he deliberately lied, of course. I once heard a gentleman proclaim — I’m sure quite sincerely, he was a priest — that President Kennedy proclaimed in his inaugural speech, “ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for your government.”
That ain’t what he said, padre. And that ain’t what the Constitution says, Buzz.
No matter how much it would support your arguments.
J.
Historically capitalism has provided much more prosperity than socialism.
True. But not unfettered, unregulated, no-holds-barred capitalism, which is the platform of modern conservatism. That path produces prosperity for a self-perpetuating few at the expense of the larger populace.
Which is really the crux of the matter, AO. Either you look out for Number One or you look out for your neighbor. Either you believe, as Ayn Rand did, that selfishness is a “virtue,” or you believe it is a vice.
The former is capitalism. The latter is what you call socialism.
Historically capitalism has provided much more prosperity than socialism.
Historically, the most successful societies have been a balance of both.
I’ll take “government running corporations” socialism over “corporations running government” fascism any day. You know, kind of like what we had for the last eight years.
Jay Tea: <i.Joe, Spider, I trust you were equally vocal about those who used the terms “Republican’ts” and “Rethuglicans…”
If they hold high political office, yes. But I haven’t seen those outside blog commentary, haven’t hear the current President of the United States say anything other than teh correct name for the opposing party.
Presumably the RNC tried for ‘socialist’ because they knew ‘baby-eating morlocks’ wouldn’t fly.
The idea that a significant, unnoticed plurality in this country would respond to the cry of ‘socialist!’ as if the Palmer Raids were still going on is rather bemusing to me. I think by 11/4 of last year, most adult Americans knew that the ‘system’ had gone off the rails, and if we kept doing what we’ve been doing, we’ll keep getting what we’ve been getting. And despite the doily underneath and the jimmies on top, the stuff in that bowl just isn’t ice cream.
Jay Tea: He just fires the CEO … tells them to get rid of dealers, make more environmentally-sensitive cars, stop selling the big money-making vehicles,
Yeah. The actual owners of a company should just STFU and not say anything about how the company they own should be run, right?
…and many more who are a more than a little confused about what socialism means.
Among which you can certainly count yourself.
Historically, “capitalists” like GWB and Dick Cheney and the Republican Party ruined the mother-loving economy of America.
Well said, Robert.
LOL,
It’s not hard to see the powers of cult personality politics. Not that any of you are interested but that old Liberal icon George McGovern had some interesting things to say after he retired from politics and took up real work in the private sector.
The pendulum swings both ways. I hope when it swings back that we won’t have given up too much advantage on the world stage and that enough of our personal liberties remain that we may hope of reaquiring some of the vanished ones.
“common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…” if EVER there was an argument for a “collective” interpretation and not an individual interpretation anywhere in the Constitution, it’s there.
Jay Tea, that wasn’t my point. My point was that you said PROVIDE and PROMOTE were NOT synomyms:
When, in fact, the Framers use the words interchangeably as they relate to the General Welfare.
It’s astonishing to me that you could then write this:
You’re own assertion was wrong on its face to anyone who’s ever read the Constitution and it also very conveniently served your own argument.
Then you go on to sneer:
But, Jay Tea, I could say you deliberately lied, or else that you have brain damage, because, as you know, I’ve pointed this out to you before!
Then you finish it off with this:
Jay Tea, what is wrong with you?!?!?! The Constitution doesn’t support your assertion either!
We can all argue till were blue in the face what the Framers meant by “General Welfare” but that’s an entirely different argument then the one you put forth about whether the Constitution empowers Congress to PROMOTE or PROVIDE for it.
Clearly, the words are used interchangeably in the Constitution. But you asserted that they were not interchangeable.
Cannot you just say, “Oh yeah, I was wrong. I’ll never repeat THAT stupid right wing canard again!”?
Fafaroo,The word welfare in Section eight doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Yes it does.
I hope when it swings back that we won’t have given up too much advantage on the world stage and that enough of our personal liberties remain that we may hope of reacquiring some of the vanished ones.
Yes, because it would suck if the richest country in the world could provide health care for all and send their kids to college. Like the rest of the civilized world.
Secondly, I call. What specific personal liberties are in danger or vanished?
AO,
In 1972, all my friends said McGovern was a communist.
Amused 0: I hope when it swings back that we won’t have given up too much advantage on the world stage and that enough of our personal liberties remain that we may hope of reaquiring some of the vanished ones.
You mean like by alienating most of the countries that used to be our solid supporters and instituting illegal wiretaps on US citizens?
It’s not hard to see the powers of cult personality politics.
Yes, just read karl Rove’s lip-flapping mentioned above after the 2004 elections.
The pendulum swings both ways.
Yes. The funny thing was that you all thought that Bush was on the side of history, when his win in 2004 was really just the dead-cat bounce of the Republican party. Enjoy the wilderness, Republicans! All the screams of “Democrat Socialist Party!” and inability to udnerstand the difference between an adjective and a noun might make you feel better, but they won’t win elections.
The pendulum won’t swing back until people like you retire and leave the republican party to a more competent, less insane generation.
Now, Jay Tea, what did we tell you about this bullshit?
Conratulations, faffer. You give us conclusive proof Mr. Tea is impervious to learning.
But that doesn’t change the fact that Buzz’s quote was, on its face, wrong. And wrong in a way that very conveniently served his argument.
One more quick point, Jay Tea. You want to know what would have made Buzz’s quote entirely accurate? Another simple ellipsis:
You want to know what would have made your assertion accurate?
Nothing.
Tyro: The pendulum won’t swing back until people like you retire and leave the republican party to a more competent, less insane generation.
Actually, it can swing back once the Dems have finished cleaning up the Repub mess, again. Given enough distance folks will forget about how badly things were screwed up and forget that the reason things have been going well is that adults are in charge.
How else to you think George Jr got into office in the first place?
People never remember. They get distracted by shiny things and sexy wedge issues.
Fafaroo, you’re absolutely right about the ellipsis. That would make it all better.
Which proves my point: it took your editing to Buzz’s original statement to make it even remotely accurate.
J.
Which proves my point: it took your editing to Buzz’s original statement to make it even remotely accurate.
No Jay Tea. That isn’t it. Aside from the fact that he changed General to Common in “General Welfare” the meaning of his quote was actually in the Constitution. So it was always accurate. Just poorly presented.
You, on the other hand, were totally full of shit and no amount of editing could have made it otherwise.
You really are impervious to learning.
So, fafaroo, I use the correct language, but I’m MORE wrong than the guy who misquotes it?
Screw being polite. I tried that, it didn’t work with you.
Go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut, fafaroo.
J.
Jay tea your brain really won’t allow you to process this, will it?
Let me lay it out fir you.
Buzz said that that Constitution includes that the government should “provide” for the general welfare.
You said it doesn’t.
You’re totally wrong. It does.
Do you get it now?
fafaroo, maybe I was mistaken. Let’s go right back to the start of this. Buzz said:
No GOP members are familiar with the words “..provide for the common welfare,..” so socialism is a dirty word to them.
OK, first, I probably should have passed on this, because I’m not a GOP member.
But I did have to memorize the Preamble to the Constitution in Junior High (and watched the Schoolhouse Rock musical version, which omitted four words ad infinitum), so I recognized not only the source of Buzz’s statement, but knew instantly he got it wrong. So I called him on it.
He hasn’t bothered to defend himself, but that’s OK — you’re ready and eager to rewrite what he said for him until it’s accurate.
There is a hell of a difference between “provide” and “promote.” Deal with it.
As far as the other reference, the one which Buzz was NOT making, I’ve already answered that — it’s a generalized statement, not bearing on individuals.
J.
Jay Tea, answer one question.
Does the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to PROVIDE for the General Welfare?
stop selling the big money-making vehicles
The SUVs and Hummers that don’t sell? Yeah…
rewrites the bankruptcy code
That was you guys back in 2005.
Historically capitalism has provided much more prosperity than socialism.
For who?
But not unfettered, unregulated, no-holds-barred capitalism, which is the platform of modern conservatism. That path produces prosperity for a self-perpetuating few at the expense of the larger populace.
This. With unbridled capitalism, you get monopolies, slavery, price-fixing, and other issues (to say the least).
It’s not hard to see the powers of cult personality politics.
This is coming from the party of Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Ronald Reagan, and Jerry Falwell.