The Party Of Reagan?

Senator Bob Dole doesn't think so.

Here he is being interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News this past Sunday:


Thanks to Think Progress for a transcript:

WALLACE: You describe the GOP of your generation as Eisenhower Republicans, moderate Republicans. Could people like you, even Ronald Reagan — could you make it in today’s Republican Party.

DOLE: I doubt it. Reagan couldn’t have made it. Certainly Nixon couldn’t have made it, 'cause he had ideas. We might have made it, but I doubt it.

Understandably, while this story's made its way onto much of the left leaning news sources (talkingpointsmemo, americablog, and so on), I was wondering if there was any (ANY) echo on any conservative blogs.

Well, my friends, take a look at this from the American Conservative.  After quoting Dole's interview with Wallace about how Reagan "couldn't have made it" in the contemporary GOP, W. James Antell III writes:

This has become a common refrain among a certain kind of Republican. Jeb Bush said much the same thing, throwing his father into the mix of party elders who would be out of step with today’s GOP.

Dole’s legislative accomplishments ranged from being part of the bipartisan majorities that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to playing a key role in the passage of the Reagan economic program. The Republicans of his era were more temperamentally conservative, even if less ideologically so. They believed in balanced budgets and would have been horrified to hear a party leader say “deficits don’t matter.”

Newt Gingrich, who became Dole’s partner in crime during the GOP Congress of 1995-96, is a good example of the party’s evolved brand. He led Republicans to their first House majority in 40 years, displaying a creativity that past Republican leaders conspicuously lacked. But he was undone by his excesses, cultivating an image of partisanship, over-the-top statements, and a penchant for unpopular crusades.

Today’s GOP is as much Gingrich’s party as Reagan’s or Nixon’s. Chest-beating often replaces prudence, the party frequently makes use of both libertarian and traditionalist themes without taking either of them very seriously.

Um thanks, Newt?

But at least that's rational - check this out from breitbart.com.  Guess what?  Instead of countering Dole's argument (and positing some evidence that Reagan WOULD be welcome in the contemporary GOP, they just BASH DOLE INSTEAD:

Dole complained that he would not make it in today's Republican Party. However, Dole could not make it in 1976 on the bottom of the GOP presidential ticket against when the Party ran against Jimmy Carter or the top of the ticket 20 years later when he ran against Bill Clinton.

And that's hardly surprising considering the state of the contemporary GOP.

Who knew I was standing so close to the Muslim Brotherhood?

A photo I took on March 14, 2008, whilst standing mere feet away from Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton

While Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) may have decried Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-McCarthyville) baseless attacks on Huma Abedin -- a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton -- for having imaginary ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Newt Gingrich has come to Bachmann's defense.

Bachmann has also accused the country's first Muslim congressman, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), of being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Abedin has had to be placed under extra security after being threatened. And, Clinton's motorcade was pelted with tomatoes and shoes while in Egypt by crowds who bought into the claims by Bachmann and others of Obama Administration ties to the Brotherhood.

That's our Michele! Spreading joy and sunshine where she goes!

The Trib Goes With Mitt

I guess they've made their decision.  In two separate places on today's Op-Ed page, Scaife's braintrust supports Mitt Romney.

Romney gets the final word in the Thursday Wrap:

Or as Mitt Romney likes to put it: "Once we thought 'entitlement' meant that Americans were entitled to the privilege of trying to succeed in the greatest country in the world. But today the new entitlement battle is over the size of the check you get from Washington." Sigh.

And he gets his own Op-Ed:

Rick Santorum got all bristled-up that Newt Gingrich would even suggest that he drop out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Then came Tuesday's Florida primary and Messrs. Santorum and Gingrich were spanked -- sharply and thoroughly -- by Mitt Romney.

Turgid to form, Gingrich has vowed to carry the nomination fight to the GOP convention floor in Tampa this summer.

Oh, goody -- a vainglorious bowlful of jelly plans to tour the country in promotion of Suicide by Newt.

It's time for Newt to take his own advice and drag Little Ricky with him -- get out of the race.

Hey, they called him "Little Ricky"!  That's something I've been doing for years.  Good to know.  Anyway the op-ed ends unambiguously with this:

The time is now for the Republican Party to coalesce around Mitt Romney and get on with the business of exposing and defeating Barack Obama.

But what will they do with this from that other Scaife-owned conservative "news" source, Newsmax?

In a piece titled "Romney Record Is ‘Flexible’ on Global Warming" Deroy Murdock, Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution (another huge beneficiary of Scaife Foundation money, by the way) lays out some Romney climate flip-flops:

A recently exposed, online dossier believed by some to be from the 2008 John McCain campaign, offers 200 pages of Romney's self-contradictions, vacillations and head scratchers. His views on so-called global warming are just the tip of this nonmelting iceberg of confusion.

The dossier includes Ryan Sager's New York Sun story of April 20, 2007, in which Romney embraces a 1940s fuel source. "Liquefied coal, gosh," Romney said. "Hitler during the Second World War — I guess because he was concerned about losing his oil — liquefied coal. That technology is still there."

Less bizarre were Romney's 2003 comments to religious leaders. According to the Los Angeles Times on March 25, 2007, Romney said he was "terrified" about "warming" and found it "quite alarming."

In July 2003, Romney wrote then-Gov. George Elmer Pataki of New York, from one RINO (Republican in name only) to another. "Now is the time to take action toward climate protection," Romney declared. He advocated a "regional cap-and-trade system" for New York and Massachusetts.

In 2004, Romney launched the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, "a coordinated statewide response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate," as his office described it.

In a press release dated Dec. 7, 2005, Romney announced that "strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants" would take effect Jan. 1, 2006.

Boggles the mind.

How Different The GOP Is!

I wanted to follow-up on this post from a few days ago.

As you will no doubt recall, Ronald Reagan was on record as saying:

We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

Owing to the date of that speech (October 24, 1984)  and to the fact that he takes a political swipe or two:

And there's something else. The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance, for anti-Semitism, or for bigotry of any kind—none. In Dallas, we acted on this conviction. We passed a resolution concerning anti-Semitism and disassociating the Republic[an] Party from all people and groups who practice bigotry in any form. But in San Francisco this year, the Democratic Party couldn't find the moral courage or leadership to pass a similar resolution. And, forgive me, but I think they owe you an explanation. [Applause] Thank you.

What has happened to them? Why, after the issue became so prominent during the primaries, did the Democratic leadership walk away from their convention without a resolution condemning this insidious cancer? Why didn't they turn their backs on special interests and stand shoulder to shoulder with us in support of tolerance and in unequivocal opposition to prejudice and bigotry?

We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism, and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America—none, whatsoever.

We can assume this is speech is more of a campaign speech than a policy speech.  It was only a few weeks before the '84 elections.  For example, what did he mean by "In Dallas"?

That would be the GOP party platform from the Party Convention in Dallas:

The Republican Party reaffirms its support of the pluralism and freedom that have been part and parcel of this great country. In so doing, it repudiates and completely disassociates itself from people, organizations, publications, and entities which promulgate the practice of any form of bigotry, racism, anti-semitism, or religious intolerance.

It's interesting to ponder that, faced with an upcoming election, Reagan decided to campaign on the idea that the church and state are separate and that in matters of faith the government must remain neutral.

How does that stand up to the current GOP in the current election season?

Jack Kelly Sunday

Ed's right.

There's not much to fact-check in this week's Jack Kelly column though that doesn't mean there's nothing worth writing about in it.

Frankly...

As far as I can tell, it started here, with Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

Looks like the PC police have threatened members of the House of Representatives against wishing constituents a "Merry Christmas," if they want to do so in a mailing paid for with tax dollars.

Members who submit official mailings for review by the congressional franking commission that reviews all congressional mail to determine if it can be "franked," or paid for with tax dollars, are being told that no holiday greetings, including "Merry Christmas," can be sent in official mail.

Another example on the PC "War on Christmas" I guess.

Except, it's not.  Not after you take a deeper look.

Song of the Day

The problem with this country is that there aren't enough nine year-old janitors

That's according to current Republican presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich who thinks that child labor laws are "truly stupid." Via MEDIAite:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told a crowd on Friday that the solution to income inequality is to fire school janitors, and replace them with children. I am not making this up, and it gets worse. He’s not talking about junior high or high school kids, he’s talking about “9 to 14 year-olds.”

He suggests that these nine year-olds replace “union janitors” in poor neighborhoods, and that the kids work under a single “master janitor.”

You just can't make this stuff up...

Rick Santorum Is A Hypocrite

In case you missed it, here's Lil Ricky a few days ago when asked about former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. From the Wonkroom:

Unabashed social conservative former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is quick to condemn homosexuality or abortion, but asked by ThinkProgress at Monday’s Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition presidential forum if Newt Gingrich had credibility to lead on “social” issues given his extramarital affairs and multiple marriages, Santorum refused to pass judgment on the former Speaker. “You have to talk to the Speaker about his issues,” he said, in an effort to dismiss the question

Then there's this gentle dodge from the National Review Online:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich is seeking “forgiveness” from voters as he mulls a 2012 presidential bid. By talking openly about his past indiscretions, and making “no bones,” as he told Fox News this week, “that there were times I did the wrong thing,” Gingrich appears to be courting skeptical social conservatives.

Will Gingrich’s redemptive tack fly in Iowa? Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, another potential contender making frequent sojourns to the Hawkeye State, has a unique take. He tells National Review Online that it is fair to question someone’s behavior but emphasizes that past mistakes should not preclude a candidate from being able to make a case for the presidency. In other words, you will not find Santorum wagging his finger on the trail.

For the record, Newt Gingrich is on this third wife and he's been divorced twice. He married his first wife in 1962. (He was 19 and she was 26.) He left her following an affair with the woman who, after his first divorce, became his second wife. This was 1981. In the mid-90s (during the Clinton scandals) he was having an affair with the woman who, after his second divorce, became his third wife.

And now here's Rick talking about divorce with Michelangelo Signorile:

Well, I would say that first and foremost the thing that his broken down the family is divorce, has had the biggest impact on family disintegration in America and is a huge problem. And I think you’re right in suggesting that folks who are marriage advocates don’t go out and say look, we need… John McCain, to his credit, said that his greatest failure in his life was his divorce… [divorce] hurts families, it hurts children, it hurts moms, it huts dads. It’s a destructive and coercive element in our society with respect to families.

It must've hurt Newt's former wives, then.

And again from the wonkroom:

Santorum is far less generous to those with whom he disagrees, including President Bill Clinton. Asked whether he thought Clinton was morally fit to stay in office following his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Santorum — who voted to convict Clinton — told the Dallas Morning News in February of 1998, “I would say no, he’s not.”

“I think it’s a sign of decadence and decay. Which is a threat to the fabric of this country,” Santorum was quoted as saying in the Washington Post in January 1998.

So when a Democrat is unfaithful, he is not morally fit to hold office and the infidelity is a sign of decadence which threatens the fabric of society, but when a Republican is unfaithful he gets a qualified pass ("Does he think he did wrong? He did? Ok, then he can go.")

Rick Santorum, moral relativist. Hypocrite.

Finally! A SANE Republican!!

Via Huffingtonpost, it's Colin Powell:

I would just tell my fellow Americans: think carefully about what was just said, think carefully about some of the stuff that is coming across the blogs and the airwaves. Let's make a couple points: One, the president was born in the United States of America. Let's get rid of that one, let's get rid of the birther thing. Let's attack him on policy and not nonsense. Next, he is a Christian. He is not a Muslim. Twenty percent of the people see he is a Muslim, 80 percent apparently do not believe he is a Muslim.

And even that's low. David Gregory has to correct him and say it's actually 30 percent. He goes onto to spank Newt Gingrich and Dinesh D'souza:

But I bet you a dollar if the unemployment rate was not 9.5 percent but it was down to four percent then you would find only five percent think he is a Muslim. So they are attacking the president on this line. But he is not a Muslim. He is a Christian, and I think we have to be careful when we take things like Dinesh D'souza's book, which is the source for all this, and suggest that somehow the president of the United States is channeling his dead father through some Kenyan spirits. This doesn't make any sense. Mr. Gingrich does these things from time to time, with a big bold statement. He did it with [Sonia] Sotomayor, she's a reverse racist; he did it with Elana Kagan, she ought to be taken off the nomination for Supreme Court justice; and he does it occasionally to make news and also to stir up dust.

Huffingtonpost ends with this:

Powell, it should be noted, has made appeals to sober-minded Republicanism before, also on "Meet the Press." And his pleas were met with calls from some of the GOP's more senior members to, essentially, leave the party. So while his rebuke of Gingrich may be newsworthy, the reaction to it could produce some telling remarks as well.

We'll see.

Fear of a Black Planet

Eventually the wingnuts are going to run out of euphemisms for the n-word.

Newt Gingrich waxes philosophical to the National Review:

Citing a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview.

[snip]

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich tells us.

This guy was once considered as some sort of intellectual, right?

[sigh]

By the way, Jake Tapper and Dana Hughes at ABC News shoot down D’Souza's theory here.

.

16,500 IRS Agents?

This argument actually bubbled up in a real-life conversation I had a few days ago. I was told that one of the problems with the new Healthcare legislation is that it would require 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce.

Newt Gingrich repeated this on Fox (of course) "News" recently. He said on the Hannity Show:

One of the things in the health bill is 16,000 additional IRS agents. Now I think the average American doesn't think we need 16,000 health police -- they don't think we need a single health police. And it's interesting that that health bill has more IRS agents than it has doctors or nurses or people who actually do health in the bill.

I think, Republicans this fall, if they were to run as one of their planks, that they will never fund the 16,000 IRS agents, and they will block implementation of the $430 billion in new taxes.

And then put it straight to the country -- Do you want 16,000 new IRS agents? Vote Democrat. Do you not want 16,000? Vote Republican.

My guess is that, in fact, could be one of the five or six issues that could set the stage for a Republican majority.

Luckily Factcheck.org has done an analysis and found that this is a lie. Take a look:

This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS "agents" would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true.

The IRS’ main job under the new law isn’t to enforce penalties. Its first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them — starting this year — which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer’s contribution toward their workers’ health insurance. And in 2014 the IRS will also be administering additional subsidies — in the form of refundable tax credits — to help millions of low- and middle-income individuals buy health insurance.

The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 that the IRS won’t be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance. He said insurance companies will issue forms certifying that individuals have coverage that meets the federal mandate, similar to a form that lenders use to verify the amount of interest someone has paid on their home mortgage. "We expect to get a simple form, that we won’t look behind, that says this person has acceptable health coverage," Shulman said. "So there’s not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee." In any case, the bill signed into law (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do. [emphasis added]

And that, as they say, is how it's done.

It's the next big GOP lie. Be on the lookout for it.

It's already oozed its way onto the pages of Richard Mellon Scaife's Tribune-Review:

OK, put aside your dictionaries. The legislation allocates $10 billion to pay for 16,500 IRS agents who will collect and enforce mandatory "premiums."

Does that sound like the private sector at work to you?

No, it sounds like a lie.

Newt Gingrich and The Pornographer

Via Thinkprogress, there's this from Adult Video News:

In a truly unexpected move, the Washington, DC-based political action committee “American Solutions for Winning the Future” (ASWF) Wednesday informed Allison Vivas, president of the adult entertainment studio Pink Visual, that she is the recipient of the organization's Entrepreneur of the Year award for 2009. The PAC, which is headed by noted conservative politician Newt Gingrich, notified Vivas of the honor via fax.

AVN reported that Vivas issued a statement regarding the award:

I’m honored, and more than a little surprised, to receive this prestigious award. It never occurred to me that Newt Gingrich, one of the principal architects of the conservative ‘Contract with America’ in the 1990s, would be willing to brave criticism from the far right of his party in order to recognize good work done on the part of an adult entertainment professional.

Alas, no good deed goes unpunished. The award has been rescinded. Quickly:

Friday, it was left to Q Boyer, marketing coordinator for Pink Visual, to break the sad news that ASWF apparently had made a mistake and consequently had rescinded the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

"Allison was disappointed to receive a call this morning from an ASWF representative stating that the fax had been sent to her 'inadvertently,'" Boyer told AVN.com. “We're not entirely clear on how one 'inadvertently' sends a fax to the right person at the correct fax number, so our sense is that this is damage control on the part of a group that is having second thoughts about either recognizing the excellent work of a porn company entrepreneur in light of their own conservative political and social orientation, or having second thoughts about their promotional methodology and communication protocols."

You can see the fax here. Boyer's right - it's unclear how that was an "inadvertent" mistake. As the Washington City Paper writes:

Perhaps Newt was moved to give kudos after viewing such Vivas’ titles as Anal Devastation, Couples Seduce Teens, Brazen And Unshaven, Double Penetration Tryouts, or, knowing the political visionary’s past, Wife Switch Volume 7.

Or maybe it was just a some big huge clusterfuck of a mistake.

Wouldn't it be a hoot, instead, that Newt's got all 16 volumes of Her First Lesbian Sex (NOT SAFE FOR WORK)?

"green coal"

Gingrich adds new term to coal industry’s propaganda lexicon: ‘green coal.’

Hahahahahahahahahaha

[sob]

.

The Pelosi Smearing Continues

Even into the next election cycle.

I caught a little of Ron Francis last night on the Pintek-Hosted NightTalk. Francis is a former county councilman and is looking to challenge Congressman Jason Altmire for the Pennsylvania 4th Congressional district seat.

Anyway, back to the Pintek hour. They dutifully parrotted the RNC line about the recent trip by Speaker Pelosi to the mid-East. She shouldn't have gone. She shouldn't be meddling in foreign affairs. Blah-blah-blah.

Let's bring some facts to the table. For all the outrage from the right about how a Speaker of the House of Representatives shouldn't be doing any foreign policy, no one from God's Own Party (and by the way the day before Mike Pintek declared the a few things on his show; that he knew the mind of God and that the Democrats are, indeed, "anti-God") seems to remember when Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich travelled all the way to China to deliver a message contrary to the Clinton Administration's foreign policy.

From the New York Times, March 31, 1997 and via Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com:

Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.

As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose.

Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'"

He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.''

Which led, according to Greenwald, to this a few days later in the Times:

China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland.

The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China.

The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.

Unmentioned, of course, by either Pintek or Francis. The political double standard on the right continues.

Conservative Disconnect

I read this morning something new about Former Speaker Newt Gingrich's actions during the late 90s:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

Still didn't make him a hypocrite, of course. Gingrich is quoted as saying:

I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials. [emphasis added]

Now that Scooter Libby's (high ranking official - Special Assistant to the President, donchaknow)been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, what are conservatives ranting about?

Free Scooter Libby

The Rupert Murdoch owned NYPost editorial ends with this:

President Bush should make things right - by pardoning Libby.

Sure, he'd take a lot of political heat for it. But Libby was in the dock because of politics - and turnabout is fair play.

Free Scooter Libby.

Anyone else see a conflict here?

Newt Gingrich on Katrina Victims

Via the Huffington Post, I found this blog entry.

Newt's one of the guys over there in God's Own Party that wants to be President of the United States and this weekend he had something deeply disturbing to say about all those pesky Katrina victims. According to this blog over at Huffingtonpost, good ole Newt started his speech with stuff about conservatives elevating the debate (tell it to Ann, Newt) and then ended it with:

How can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane. (emphasis original)

Here's an audio clip if you don't believe he said it.

Aren't conservatives supposed to be compassionate these days? Or was that just another smoke screen from dubya? I'm just asking. Somehow blaming victims for their victimhood (in this case, in the face of a hugely devastating hurricane) just seems, well, mean - though par for the course for that subgenre of conservative thinking.

Harry Shearer fact-checks Newt:

In case Newt hasn't been reading up (try Path of Destruction or The Storm), the folks in the Ninth Ward weren't caught by a hurricane. They were surprised at 5:30 Monday morning (according to Van Heerden's timeline) by an eighteen-foot-high wall of water as their federally built flood protection structure catastrophically failed.

Who's the uneducated one?

I wonder.