Arianna On "Rachel Maddow," Talks About The State Of The GOP (VIDEO)

Arianna appeared on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow" show on Friday to discuss the state of the Republican party and what the GOP needs to come to terms with in order to once again be viable.

Comments

[songbird02]

Rachel Maddow's show is the best. I love when she has to be talked down! I love her energy and her quick wit. I also love the Lame Duck Watch... She is great.

[StevenBolstad]

I love both of these women. Maddow and Huffington. Heroes both.

Let's say you have a restaurant.
Would you hire people to work there that did not like to serve?
Would you hire people to cook there that did not like food?
Would you put the cheapest chairs and tables and tell customers to bring their own utensils?
Would you let the meals go out to the tables without checking to see if proper standards were not used?

You would have one of the worst restaurants in the world.
No one would want to eat there. Soon you would be out of business.

Yet this is similar to what the conservative Republicans have brought to the government.
The old Ronald Reagan adage "Government is not the solution, government is the problem"
was quite a catch phrase.
It rallied a populist attitude across the country that tore traditional working Democrats away from the party that had always been good for their own economic best interests.
The famous "Reagan Democrats".

The Democrats had run a fat and greasy cafe.
The food was heavy and often loaded with pork.
And the diners had not much choice on the menu.
The Republican diet was good for awhile. We lost weight became trim.

Then the other Republican adage from Grover Norquist who wanted
"..to make government small enough to drown in the bath tub."

The New Orlens bath tub, as it turned out.

http://www.stevenbolstad.com/POLITIX/BadRestaurant/P034.html

[LightningJoe]

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. You can't take an analogy and stretch it out until it tears, and think that it still says anything meaningful at all.

As witness, look where your restaurant analogy takes you: to the statement that the Republicans put government on a "diet," and that it made us more "trim."

How on Earth do you support that statement? Spending has taken off like a Space Shuttle, under the now-expiring Reich Dynasty. How is that "trim?"

In reality (remember reality?) Republicans tried to sell off the government to private interests, and largely succeeded. But it didn't make ANYTHING more efficient, except for the more-efficient funneling of our tax dollars into private hands -- which movement of resources DID NOT make our government more efficient, but just the opposite.

Stop reading propaganda, and you might learn something worth knowing.

[IslandGyal]

ROTFLMAO@ "making Matt Drudge obsolete". After listening to Arianna, I see there is hope for misguided republicans after all, but I often wonder if there's a possibility that Arianna will filp back on day.

[jackthecommentor]

Republicans believe that if they dismantle the gov down to it's bare essentials, the only part it has to play is takeing care of politicians who are working within it. Cutting programs that help any other part of American society takes away from the pie. The pie only has so many pieces and the Republicans want as big a piece of it as they can get. The bastard children of Capitolism are greed and corruption. These truths have been known for decades now, but are often left to their own devices. Greed and corruption come in a lot of forms, many of which are not talked about much in political circles. Much like the illegitemit children of people who have had indiscretions too embarrasing to speak of. Greed and corruption should be taken out to the proverbial woodshed every time they rear their ugly heads.Then , and only then, will they change their ways.

[franklin opt]

Otoh, why did they create the Department of Homeland Security when they only needed a liaison between the FBI and CIA?

[Vixter]

I find it hugely ironic that the majority of repugs. are always going on & on about Reagan (policies, economics, democrats, ad nauseum). I remember reading an article during the general election that Nancy Reagan had said that her husband, Ronnie, would have liked Obama. The quote went something like "he could see through all the smoke and mirrors the GOP is throwing around, and he would have liked Obama for his honesty."

Wonder why that fact was overlooked....

[Keith52]

Bingo. If government is the problem, why do Republicans run for office? They run so they can sit and do nothing in a tax payer funded office?

It is so transparent that the Republicans only want socialized government for the rich. All other government functions are not needed.

[rhettisha]

I adore both Arianna and Rachel, but a few weeks ago I noticed someone on the Rachel Maddow show--maybe a producer-- was using HuffPo as an outline for their show. On some nights, Rachel's line up matches the HuffPo headlines note for note and often it seems the stories come out in the same order as they did during the day on HuffPo.

So, I wrote in and suggested that instead of just copying HuffPo note for note, they do the "HuffPo and Rachel Show" with occasional visits from Arianna and her bloggers and it looks like they're taking my advice. Thanks to everybody at the Rachel show and HuffPo too!

[ladydriver]

Arianna, you rock, girl!

My question is, why can this only be a 2-party system? Personally, I think we should create a third party of those of us who aren't particularly thrilled with either the Democratic or Republican parties, that respresents our progressive, more moderate point of view. I know that we have other third parties, but none of them seem to accurately what I view to be "the middle" road, non-extremists...you know, those of us who actually elected Barack Obama.

[bygollymissmolly]

I agree. We should form a "Progressive" party. I would be one of the first to join. If the Democratic party saw half their people bolt for a "Progressive" party, it might be a wakeup call to them that we are fed up with the wimpy Democrats and want to see some real action. The only problem with creating a Progressive party would be that it would guarantee Republican wins far into the future. That's what chains us to the two-party system.

[Torita]

Exactly - I am all for this idea in theory, but remember what happened in 2000 when disillusioned Democrats decided to take a stand and vote outside their party? I'd be terrified it would happen again; we'd have to organize it perfectly to ensure we wouldn't just be splitting the left and giving the Rethugs a de facto victory...

[SOLERSO68]

The REAL danger of an overly weak republican party is that Certain democrats might not be able to resist pickiing goofy, useless and unpopualr culture war battles with their wing nut counterparts on the right. In fact, those wing nut republicans are counting on it. You didnt mention it but that very thing contributed mightlily to Reagan's narrative"myth". The one that featured democrats as out of touch, special interest, eletist weirdos, who were aiming to disenfranchise middle class and working class white voters, who went for it completely.

[LeftLeanWing]

Only Republicans can be RHEEL AHMERECKANS

[QuietLightTraveler]

We live in a complex society and one that has many problems. We need a strong government to protect us against excesses and exploitation by the private sector and to ensure that environmental and energy concererns are addressed for the future. We need the help of government to guide us in the direction so that we remain competitive with the rest of the world. Human nature is such that the forces of capitalism must be well controlled with sufficient oversight. The conservative philosophy to shrink government and promote totally free markets is nonsense and stupidity. This anti science, anti environmental position of conservatives is pure stupidity. How anyone could agree with such a value system is beyond my comprehension

[CactusTom]

Arianna is right: Reagan got it wrong a about government being the problem. Government is not the problem. Bad government is the problem, as the last eight years has proven.

[RiggsMD]

They dropped the ball on the 'New World Order'. Now, the grand plan has been set-back even further. Obama 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tyrus]

If the Republican Party essentially represents Corporate interests and the top 5% (generous), then they have to lie, steal and cheat to come off with a popular majority vote. The religious right was used, just as Joe the plumber was used cynically to generate votes.

If Republicans were honest, they'd rename and redefine the party moving Center Left, thus moving the Democrats center "lefter". Then, we might start to have an honest conversation about what best serves the common good!

eg Why are we still denying the efficiency of single payer health care? If you are a fiscal conservative doesn't this make the most sense? Or do we continue wasting money on supporting an unnecessary bloated bureaucracy within doctors offices across America.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

I would encourage everyone to study the 1976 election when Ronald Reagan lost the Republican nomination to Gerald Ford, but not before gaining 46% of the vote. At that time, Reagan no longer held public office, was roundly criticized and burlesqued on Saturday Night Live and when Jimmy Carter won the general election later that year, the 65 year old Reagan was sung a swan song, as was the beleaguered Republican Party who, coming off the heals of the Viet Nam War and Watergate, was similarly dismissed.

I don't have to tell you what happened four years later.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kj-dwyer/a-shudder-of-recognition_b_131753.html

This year, McCain/Palin garnered the same 46% and at last count 64% of the Republicans want Palin to run as their candidate in 2012. The only difference between her and Reagan is that she still holds the office of governor.

I agree with Arianna that Palin is an embarrassment, but so was Reagan and she's cut from the exact same cloth.

We dismiss her at our peril. She continually needs to be discredited at every turn. We can't take our eyes off her for a second. There needs to be a new "Palin watch" section added to HuffPo to pounce on her every blunder.

Let's not make the same mistake twice.

[CamJam]

I totally agree. And that is a really great idea about having a section called "PALIN WATCH"
2012 is not that far away and in the works big time for the Republicans and *gags* Palin. Hopefully your idea gets underway A S A P.

[DDK]

You seem to be a little confused. You say that Reagan lost with 46% of the vote in 1976 and compare that to the 46% that McCain/Palin garnered this year. Of course, Reagan's votes were among Republicans in the primaries, not the general election, and thus are not comparable.

And I certainly wouldn't say that Palin is "cut from the exact same cloth" as Reagan (who, by the way, was not "criticized and roundly burlesqued" on SNL at the time). It's true that Reagan was seen as not particularly bright, but he'd be seen as a genius next to Palin, and Nancy Reagan was never a member of a political group that advocated California's secession from the Union.

I would agree that it would be dangerous to dismiss even as flawed a politician as Mrs. Palin - after all, look at the current occupant of the Oval Office. But there's no need for this kind of, sorry, silly paranoia.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

You're absolutely right about the percentage I quoted. It wasn't the "same" 46% because, as you rightly point out, Reagan's was strictly from the Republican primaries. I meant, simply, the same number.

My point was that although he WAS roundly burlesqued on Saturday Night Live (you are engaging in revisionist history there), Reagan very nearly won the Repub nomination from a sitting president.

As far as being cut from the same cloth: Reagan was a not particularly bright student who graduated from a small midwestern college who went on to become an actor and then found his way into politics.

Palin was a not particularly bright student who attended six small northwestern colleges in as many years, got a degree in broadcast journalism (you're right; it's not EXACTLY acting) and then found her way into politics.

They both were governors who played on their telegenic and base populist appeal with extreme right-wing agendas.

If the next four years are as dire as many economists are predicting, there could be a backlash against Obama, paving the way for the hugely popular Palin.

It's not silly paranoia; it's history possibly repeating itself .

I'm not saying that it needs to be front and center given the collosal mess we're facing with the economy, the wars, etc., but it frankly should be some group's job to keep tabs on the sleeping Sarah.

[aofh]

The mood of the country is very different now than in 76. Nixon had resigned a year-and-a-half earlier and Ford had pardoned him. Also, in hindsight, it appears that the New Deal had run its course and people fell for Reagan's fantasy of the City on the Hill. Today, Reaganomics seems to have run its course and I don't think the general population is going to re-embrace it anytime soon. There is too much uncertainty and too much pain.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm reminded of the Argentine collapse in 2001. In the '90s the Bush family friend and Argentine president, Carlos Menem (who artificially pegged the Argentine peso to the US dollar), sent the Argentine economy into recession in his last years in office. His party, the Justicialistas, was defeated by a coalition government, led by Fernando de la Rua, which was elected in 1999. In December 2001, just two years after de la Rua took office, the economy completely collapsed and he was forced to resign, sending Menem's party back into power once again.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's very close. While the recession has finally come to the United States, it has yet to manifest fully and, unfortunately, a lot could get significantly worse while Obama is at the helm (through no fault of his own) sending the mass back into the arms of Republican mendacity.

Reagan's fantasy, as you aptly call it, still runs very strong in a lot of people (46% voted for McCain/Palin). We need to be careful not to dismiss it out of hand and continue to discredit it.

I am extremely gratified by Obama's win and look forward to the possibility of the first progressive presidency in many, many years (Bill Clinton's hands were tied by a Repub. Congress) and the vast majority of our attention should be on the job at hand (the economy, the wars, the environment, etc.). However, we need to remain vigilant against the "Reagan fantasy."

[IslandGyal]

I agree that there should be a Palin Watch. The woman is a pathological liar, and still managed to garner 46% of the vote. The thought that so many Americans are so stupid to willingly put an anti-intellectual, pathological liar in office, is just incredulous to me.

[denholt]

I've been thinking of the need for a "Palin Watch" almost since the day she popped up on our radar screen. HuffPost: please move this beyond the suggestion phase and make it happen!