Michael Steele on The Huffington Post

GOP Purity Test Designed To 'Stick It' To Steele: Ally

2009-12-01T18:39:48Z

An ally of Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele says that a "purity test" suggested for the party platform is just a publicity stunt orchestrated by his political opponents.

"You've got a few backbenchers who are unhappy," Shawn Steel, an RNC member from California, told CNN. "They don't have the power they once had under the previous chairman, and that's what motivating this. This is an attempt to stick it to Chairman Steele by the losers."

The resolution being proposed would demand that candidates adhere to ten core principles or lose party backing. Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush would have failed.

On Tuesday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) became the latest Republican leader to come out against the resolution.

"I think the more people look at that, the more they realize that's not a good idea," Cornyn said. "Republicans have always been the party of grassroots, not of top-down command and control. I think we ought to have these fights about what the republican party represents in republican primaries, and nominate the strongest candidates to win in November."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Zombie Reagan Brought Back To Life To Lead GOP (VIDEO)

2009-11-30T16:37:48Z

Lacking an effective spokesperson, the GOP has put their faith in the reanimated corpse of Ronald Reagan. According to this video from The Onion, Zombie Reagan is a face that Republicans can trust. "When he moans at them, they're going to listen." As long as he hasn't eaten their ears yet.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Poll: GOP Divided Over Party's Direction, Leaders

2009-11-30T02:48:16Z

The Republican rank and file is largely in sync with GOP lawmakers in their staunch opposition to efforts by President Obama and Democrats to enact major health-care legislation, but a new Washington Post poll also reveals deep dissatisfaction among GOP voters with the party's leadership as well as ideological and generational differences that may prove big obstacles to the party's plans for reclaiming power.

Alex Castellanos Hired By Republican National Committee

2009-11-24T10:50:20Z

The Republican National Committee has hired Alex Castellanos, a long-time political strategist and GOP consultant, as an adviser.

Castellanos has been described (according to his National Media biography) as the "father of the attack ad." He's best known for a racially-charged ad he made in 1990 for racist former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). The ad, called "Hands," featured a pair of white hands crumbling a job-rejection while the narrator said, "You needed that job. You were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority, because of a racial quota. Is that really fair?" More recently, Castellanos has taken the lead in crafting an anti-health care reform message for congressional Republicans.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Nathan Daschle: The GOP "Comeback" is Really a Throwback

2009-11-19T13:43:09Z

If the sound of loud cackling wakes you up in the middle of the night, that's the Republicans crowing about their recent wins in the 2009 gubernatorial races while they meet this week in Austin.

The GOP is downright giddy that, after three straight years of electoral losses at the federal and state level, it won the governors races in Virginia and New Jersey. The fact is, Virginia and New Jersey were about two things: Virginia and New Jersey. These states have voted against the party in the White House for decades, and they did it again this November. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. The question of the day, however, is not about 2009. It's about 2010 and whether America will continue down a new path of promise and prosperity, or whether it will cut a screeching U turn and return to the policies that caused the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Republicans insist that these recent elections signal that the American public is yearning for a "GOP Comeback." To the contrary, Americans - and independent voters in particular - want results, not politics. The Republican party is the last place to find them. Unlike the intellectually robust Republican party of 1993, this group of Republicans has narrowed their ambitions to a single word: "no." No to finally lowering our skyrocketing health care costs. No to pulling our nation from the economic crisis they created. No to anything that may further solidify our President's standing when it could come at the cost of their own - even when it's good for the country.

As an alternative, they tout an obtuse agenda they call the "GOP Comeback." While short on specifics, it's clear from their rhetoric that their central organizing idea is a return to the same failed, job-killing ideas Americans overwhelmingly rejected in 2008: tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, little to no government oversight, and slashing efforts to help grow the middle class. But the so-called "GOP Comeback" is not just a return to the failed ideas of the past, it's a return to the failed leaders of the past. The roster of candidates starring in the Comeback include lackluster has-beens such as Bill McCollum, Scott McInnis, Sam Brownback, Rick Lazio, and of course John Kasich. This IS your father's GOP.

Not just are the Republicans trying to pawn yesterday's wares, but they remain a house divided. There is a vicious civil war taking place in the Republican party. We saw this struggle engulf the 2009 House and Governors' races, and now it's spreading to states like Colorado, where the moderates pushed out conservative newcomer Josh Penry. This move raised the ire of right-wing stalwart Tom Tancredo, who is now threatening to take Penry's place and carry the torch of the conservatives against the mushy-moderate Scott McInnis. In Iowa, former four-term Governor Terry Branstad is getting pummeled daily by his GOP brethren for promising to raise taxes. A recent poll showed that more than 50 percent of Republicans would rather vote for an ideologically pure candidate than someone who can win. The Republicans will continue to struggle so long as hot-headed purists weigh them down.

What's more, this party has no clear leader. Like Cerberus, the Republican party has many heads, all of them angry. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Steele, Haley Barbour, Sarah Palin, Joe Wilson...all of these politicians have a claim to being the leader of the GOP. And all of them alienate most Americans.

While the GOP fights its civil war and searches for its soul, Democrats will continue with what we have set out to do: bring about much needed change and usher in a new era of hope and prosperity. With the President not even a year into his Administration, Democratic Governors are working with him every day to create jobs and make life better for all Americans. At the same time, Democratic Governors are demonstrating that our brand of management works at the state level as well as it does on the federal level. The nonpartisan Governing Magazine just named Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley the best Governor in the country. Five of the seven states with AAA bond ratings have Democratic Governors. To the chagrin of the pessimists, our Governors are proving that it is possible to cut budgets while preserving investments in education and health care that are the foundation of prosperity for the next generation.

There is a lot of work to be done, and American voters will reward the party that retains its optimism and puts forth a concrete plan to return prosperity. Republicans' anxiety and pessimism about our future will not fare well with the voters. More importantly, while the jury on the new Administration is still out, the case against the Republicans has long been closed. Their failed ideas, and certainly their failed leaders, are unlikely to see a return. Perhaps that rooster crow will be a wake up call to a party whose ideas have long been dormant: stand up and offer real solutions or reconcile yourselves to a lifetime in the minority.

Joanne Bamberger: Sarah Palin: Going Rogue to the White House Or Someplace Else?

2009-11-18T14:36:19Z

Sarah Palin in 2012? Some are chuckling, but they might want to rethink their take on the first woman on a GOP presidential ticket.

Conservative pundit David Brooks laughed out loud at the suggestion, calling her a "joke". Others point to 2008 wannabes Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as more qualified and doing better in polls than Palin when people talk about GOP Presidential hopefuls. Of course, most thought that quitting her day job as Alaska Governor was the death knell for her political career, but I think this is just the beginning of Palin's national political career. After all, she was just on Oprah!

Seriously, as I have to remind some who've accused me of being a closet Republican, I'm no political fan of Palin. But when people dismiss her out of hand, I keep thinking one thing -- remember the last politician we scoffed at as not even close to being competent enough for the White House?

Yup -- George W. Bush. And then we said, "Oh, well, at least he'll only be a one-termer like his father." We were 0 for 2 on that front.

It turns out that the "smart" Bush wasn't the one people related to -- as a nation, we preferred the baseball-loving, brush-clearing, recovering-beer-swilling-guy. More people liked Bush because even though he has two Ivy League degrees, they saw the "common" man in him, and that made them connect with him in a Dr. Phil sort of way.

People also related to Barack Obama in spite of his Harvard degree because he, too, had a good dose of the "everyman" in his life story -- son of a single mom from middle America who struggled with his identity and didn't have things just handed to him on a platter.

But voters wouldn't find a working class story appealing with Palin, right? Think again. There are plenty of voters who find her accessible and according to a recent Rasmussen poll, a majority of Republicans like her and think she shares their values. You can "betcha" Palin will use that angle for all it's worth. According to an excerpt in the New York Times from her book, Going Rogue:

We know what it's like to be on a tight budget and wonder how we're going to pay for our health care, let alone college tuition. ... We know what it's like to work union jobs, to be blue-collar, white-collar, to have our kids in public schools. We felt our very normalcy, our status as ordinary Americans, could be a much-needed fresh breeze blowing into Washington, D.C.

Plus there are still plenty of women who are smarting over Hillary Clinton's loss and who just might vote for Palin if she's the candidate in 2012 because they don't want to wait one more second to see a woman in charge of the Oval Office.

Don't laugh too hard! Democrats aren't doing such a bang up job at the moment -- they're dragging their feet on Paycheck Fairness, throwing reproductive health under the bus and we still aren't further on paid sick days even though we're all spreading the swine flu to each other like wildfire.

Palin is a wily one so I'm not counting her out for 2012, but I wonder if she's got something else on her agenda. I'm betting that being President is a little too much real work for her and that she's angling for something else.

My official prediction is that Palin wants Michael Steele's job as head of the Republican National Committee. Even though Steele has taken his share of jabbing and isn't the most effective one, the position of RNC Chair can be an extremely powerful position -- maybe even more powerful than President when it comes to selecting candidates for races around the country. Plus, you don't have to worry about all those pesky voters, campaign debates and whistle-stop tours! One of the most important roles of a party chair is to be fundraiser-in-chief and that's something that Palin has proven she excels at.

As much as many would like to dismiss her from the national stage (myself included), Palin isn't going quietly. Whether you like her or not, one has to acknowledge the power in that. Whether she runs for President in 2012 or sets her sights on some other political plum, she'll definitely have plenty of pocket change to look for a pied-a-terre in the lower 48 where she can set up base camp.

What do you think? Are Palin's 15 minutes up or is she the new secret weapon to lure women back to the Grand Old Party?

Joanne Bamberger is a political anaylst and writer in Washington, D.C. and the founder of PunditMom blog, a site about the intersection of motherhood and politics. Her work appears in the just released, Kirtsy Takes a Bow: A Celebration of Women's Online Favorites and she is at work on a book about political motherhood (Bright Sky Press, Fall 2010).

Susan J. Demas: The Confidence Gap Between Democrats And Republicans

2009-11-18T12:30:58Z

"We are the champions, my friends," crooned Michigan Senate President Pro-Tem Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) the day after the Nov. 3 election.

Former state Rep. Mike Nofs (R-Battle Creek) had won a landslide victory for an open Senate seat, giving Republicans a firm 22-16 majority. It wasn't unexpected, nor was it necessarily a bellwether, but Richardville practically skipped into the Senate chambers and his fellow Republicans couldn't stop beaming. When Nofs appeared for his victory lap, there were handshakes and backslaps all around.

It was a palpable return to normalcy, not just in Michigan, but in New Jersey and Virginia, as well. The GOP was victorious and all was right with the world.

Hard to believe that just a year ago, Barack Obama crushed John McCain and the Democrats piled up punishing majorities in Congress. In Michigan, the Democratic base hit 56 percent and the party picked up nine more state House seats.

It was like a morgue on the Republican side of the aisle on Nov. 4, 2008. Some were sullen, some were angry, but almost all looked unmistakably like something had been usurped from them.

Democrats were giddy, but it there was an aura of the surreal. The hand-wringing started immediately over strategy on the stimulus, health care and cap and trade. Instead of enjoying the ride, the question shifted to: how are we going to blow this? Will we micromanage like Carter? Capitulate like Clinton?

Golly gee, why do we Democrats suck so bad (even when we win)?

And therein lies the powerful psychological difference between the parties. It's the confidence gap.

Republicans may be livid, but they soon bounce back, even when they've been absolutely electorally pummeled. That's just an inexplicable aberration, like the popularity of plaid pants. All we have to do is return to our conservative roots and we shall reclaim what's rightfully ours.

It is almost mathematically and historically impossible for Republicans to take back Congress next year. They are 0 for 5 in the last five special elections, including the takedown of Know Nothing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in NY-23. But you'd never know that from the nonstop, right-wing bravado that the glorious second coming of Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution is at hand (even though Newt is flagellated these days as a card-carrying communist for backing moderates).

Republicans have a well-oiled propaganda machine to facilitate the fantasy of strength and popularity, from Fox News to The Weekly Standard. The message is always the same: Whether the GOP wins or loses, it always wins (and God bless St. Ronald Reagan).

So even though Tea Partiers represent a shockingly low percentage of the electorate (even a minority of the GOP), they're lauded as "real Americans" and net far more coverage and influence than they deserve.

And forget all the problematic reputable polls showing health care reform is popular. We have our own polling that miraculously says the opposite. Besides, House Minority Leader John Boehner, the epically tanned man of the people, says he's never met anyone for the public option, so that's good enough for me.

Meanwhile, check out MSNBC or The Nation. You might find some cheerleading for the president by Keith Olbermann, but most of it is a scowling gripefest. Obama's not a liberal, boo hoo, he's betrayed us.

We should all have single-payer health care by now, peace in the Middle East, zero carbon emissions and a pony. I voted for him and I want my pony, dammit. Woe is me, when will I ever have the progressive superhero president I deserve?

I can see why indecisive independents might gravitate toward Fox News and the Tea Party crowd. At least they seem to be having fun - and they appear to know what they're doing.

Even more than the ailing economy and slightly rising poll numbers, what Republicans have going for them is that good ole Democratic pessimism. It's all doom and gloom for the donkeys (and yes, Michigan Lt. Gov. John Cherry's poll numbers do give them reason) but they'd be kvetching if he were 20 points ahead.

So listen up, Democrats.

Laugh all you want at those misspelled signs at Tea Parties. Titter at Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele's endless buffoonery on the cable circuit. And snigger as the GOP tries to detonate itself over dogmatic primary challenges instead of rebuilding a national party.

That doesn't mean you're going to win next year.

Which is fine by the unions and liberal activists, to be honest. They'd rather be screeching in the minority, reveling in their powerlessness to change anything as long as they keep control of their little fiefdoms. Besides, think of all the awesome blog posts you can write shredding new Michigan Gov. Mike Cox.

This week, a brilliant progressive friend of mine railed with a straight face that state Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) is like Hitler. Sorry, but that's as nutty as comparing the Dems' health care bill to Dachau. A moratorium on Nazi analogies in intelligent political debate would suit me just fine, unless we're talking about actual followers of the Third Reich.

The truth is, Democrats are often terrible at governing, as even liberals complain about Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. That takes leadership and organization. And it just feels more natural being in the minority. Just ask the state Senate Democrats, who have dwelled there for a quarter-century and show little hope of digging out after Nofs' win last week.

I'm not convinced that Republicans are naturally better managers, but most of them project the self-confidence to do the job.

Kind of makes you wonder what a difference it would make if Democrats were that decisive.

GOP Presidential Candidates Already Jockeying For 2012 Election

2009-11-14T20:17:32Z

WASHINGTON — Sarah Palin is embarking on a book tour. Tim Pawlenty is building a national political operation. Mitt Romney is weighing in on the recession.

They're all jockeying for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination – even if they won't say so.

Melinda Warner: If You Have Donated To The RNC Since 1991, You Have Funded Abortion

2009-11-13T17:12:25Z

While the news that the health insurance plan the RNC offers to employees covers elective abortions proved amusing to many pro-choice Americans, this revelation exposes a much deeper problem with the Republican Party.

If you believe recent Republican rhetoric in the health care reform debate, then you believe that "if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars."

Using that logic, every single person who has donated money to the RNC (since 1991!) has also funded abortions because a portion of those donations go towards the employer's portion of each employee's health care premium.

Since 2000, the RNC has raised $1.79 billion. That's a lot of money that probably wasn't intended to support elective abortions.

Even though the RNC has decided to "opt out" of the abortion coverage, the problem doesn't really go away. As Steve Benen points out: "The new RNC policy, apparently, is to have insurance through Cigna, opting out of abortion coverage. But let's not lose sight of the original fungibility problem -- the RNC is taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers."

So where does this leave the Republican Party? How deep does their hypocrisy run? They've refused to protect women from the downright evil treatment they receive from private insurance companies, prominent members have been stridently anti-choice, and the party's members in the states have passed obscene laws invading the privacy of American women -- all the while ensuring their employees have the ability to make decisions about their bodies and families without political interference.

It is not an excuse that the Chairman "didn't know." Michael Steele has made it clear that he doesn't know much about the insurance policies of the RNC. The rest of the RNC leadership -- and definitely the HR department -- should have been aware. And any sensible political strategist would have thought to check and see if elective abortions were covered when the debate over health care started in earnest this year. Because everyone knew it was going to come up. Everyone knew the Republicans were going to put the issue out front in their attempt to derail reform efforts.

The Republican platform against abortion is evidently an abstract concept, since the tangible evidence proves that the GOP doesn't care enough about it to ensure its actions fall in line with the rhetoric -- unless they get caught, of course, then they're quick to "opt out."

John R. Bohrer: Hold the Hofstadter: Why the GOP Is Winning 2010

2009-11-11T19:21:35Z

Over the last few months, a number of prominent political columnists have pointed to historian and social critic Richard Hofstadter to explain what is happening to the Republican Party. 1964's The Paranoid Style in American Politics and his 1954 essay, "The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt," among others, tell us why so many Republicans are lashing out at town halls and tea parties. And because the protesters make a lot of noise, wave disgusting signs and are embraced by a major political party, they get a lot of attention.

Here's the rub: their craziness turns away those who do not already agree with them, and yet the GOP is beginning to pull ahead in the generic congressional ballot match-up. How can this be?

Perhaps it's because while we're all hopped up on Hofstadter and understanding what Sam Tanenhaus defines as The Death of Conservatism, we've forgotten about another important contingent of Americans: low-information 2008 Obama voters.

Like those who took part in Arianna's 'One Year Later' debate last week, the past year has left these people feeling discouraged, apathetic, or worse: betrayed. But unlike news junkies, they don't look at Obama and see someone who misunderstood Washington or has been too accommodating. These people look at Obama and believe he has turned on them.

The latest unemployment rate is 10.2 percent -- a 26-year high. Despite positive numbers in April, a majority of Americans believe we're on the "wrong track." In New Jersey and Virginia, 9 in 10 voters described being worried about the direction of the nation's economy in 2010. Never mind which way they voted -- that's not the point. The point is what they're feeling, and the message is clear: Americans are not confident in our economic recovery.

The economy is the maker or breaker of a successful presidency. We forget (if we ever learned) that inflation is what handcuffed Lyndon Johnson halfway through his term, exposing other vulnerabilities and ultimately toppling him. In a survey of more recent history, John B. Judis displays how clearly the unemployment rate reflects a president's unpopularity in times of boom and bust.

This is what we have been missing. While Republican leaders and mouthpieces are continually setting new standards for outrageousness, the more subtle -- and more damaging -- lies receive less attention. And that is: 'The Democrats' economic recovery has failed. And if it did anything for anyone, it certainly wasn't for people like you.'

Maybe it's time to put down the Hofstadter and pick up the writings of Everett Carll Ladd, Jr. He's the political scientist who, in the 1970s, began writing about the contributor/beneficiary dynamic that led to the collapse of the Democratic coalition. Ladd wrote of how the New Deal majority was put off by the Great Society's focus on the poor, making them feel like "contributors rather than beneficiaries" of government initiative.

It's similar to today, except in our time of bank bailouts-and-bonuses, members of the 2008 Obama coalition believe their money is moving up the financial food-chain instead of down. Ladd also picked up on how voters can be of two minds at once. For example: those in the '70s who believed the government should do more for the poor -- and that government should spend less on welfare. Today, you're likely to find voters who support government action to save the economy (something Republicans opposed, but we'll get back to that), yet believe the government won't save their economy.

Ask a low-information Obama voter if they think people like them benefited from the stimulus program and you're bound to hear a 'no.' And can you blame them? Chances are they haven't been to recovery.gov; they're more likely to have heard TV reports about auto executives or bankers benefiting from government injections.

This is a failure of the Obama administration communicating the good they've done. It's not a pretty job. After all, who wants to boast of 'successfully' holding unemployment down to 10.2 percent?

Republicans should get some credit for discouraging this set of Obama voters, too. They have no other choice but to try to pin bad economic news on Democratic policies. The Republicans voted against economic recovery because they wanted Obama and the Democrats to own it, and once they did that, they were all in. They had to see to it that it failed -- not in reality (they took the funds for their districts); but in the minds of the American people.

So even though the unemployment rate would certainly be worse and GDP would be shrinking like it was at the end of the Bush years instead of growing like it is today, they can't let voters think that. No, look at last Sunday's talk shows and you'll find Michael Steele and Mike Pence arguing the economic recovery program increased the unemployment rate. Believe what you want on whether the stimulus was prudent or not, but to shout that spending billions on public works is "not creating jobs"?

Democrats should and do refute these wild accusations. Unfortunately, it's difficult for them to reserve the brunt of their outrage for lies about the economy when the same Republicans cheer on protesters waving signs equating health care reform with Nazi death camps.

It's an easy score to go after the inflammatory, though it's ultimately misguided. For when ranking voter priorities, who do they punish? The party of twisted sign-wielding protesters? Or the party they trusted to fix the economy and didn't?

That being said, things change. The economy might get better. Republican challengers will be defined. But this backward contributor/beneficiary dynamic is what's sinking the Democrats in 2010. Even if the economy recovers, they risk losing the credit for it unless they focus on making their coalition believe they are the beneficiaries of their economic policies.

Rob Kall: Top-Down Blowback; The GOP Discovers That the Grassroots Bites Back

2009-11-11T10:37:44Z

Sometimes it's not wisdom of the crowds, it's madness of the crowds. What happens when a top-down organization which has exploited the grassroots finds that the grassroots won't take it any more and starts to bite back, to take control?

For years, the GOP was a totally top-down organization. It exploited the fears, faiths and foibles of its core constituency. Paul Krugman, , described it in his November 2009 NY Times Op-ed, Paranoia Strikes Deep. He discusses how a major protest in Washington D.C., officially sponsored by the House Republican leadership, which he described:

...including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption "National Socialist Healthcare." It was grotesque -- and it was also ominous. For what we may be seeing is America starting to be Californiafied.

The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn't a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leadership -- in fact, it was officially billed as a G.O.P. press conference. Senior lawmakers were in attendance, and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.

True, Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, offered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is "mild." The signs were "inappropriate," said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler comparisons by such people as Rush Limbaugh, said Mr. Cantor, "conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.

What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

Krugman describes how paranoia has seeped back into the Republican party, a paranoia that Hofstadter described in 1964. He discusses how, with the election of Reagan, Republicans began pandering to the passions of the angry right, but how, until recently

...that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elections were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite. Thus in 2004 George W. Bush ran on antiterrorism and "values," only to announce, as soon as the election was behind him, that his first priority was changing Social Security.

Then, Krugman observes:

But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long believed that history was on their side, so the G.O.P. establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little longer: once the party consolidated its hold on power, they'd get what they wanted. After the Democratic sweep, however, extremists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.

Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down management. At this point Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P. And he has no authority: Republican voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable candidate in New York's special Congressional election.

Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a conventional politician). Because these people aren't interested in actually governing, they feed the base's frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.

In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: elections aren't necessarily won by the candidate with the most rational argument. They're often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.

Krugman is describing the power of bottom up passion. Limbaugh, Beck and Palin tap the energy and emotions of the masses, and flame their biases and bigotry. This is the "madness of the crowds" that was always to be feared. It is a potent force that, if effectively tapped, can be very destructive.

Krugman looks at how the teapartying far right acolytes of Beck and Limbaugh could literally gain enough power to do what Republicans in California have done, saying:

In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing -- but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.

The same thing could and may already be happening with the Democratic party. Obama either promised or allowed people to develop expectations that he would make big changes happen. Who would have thought that would mean reducing women's access to abortion -- an issue central to the women who make up at least 60% and probably closer to 65% of the Democratic party?

Who would have thought that Obama's health care plan would enrich big Pharma and raise profits for health insurers while raising taxes on small businesses and threatening to jail people who were uninsured?

It is not surprising that both major parties are facing either backlashes or major groups within their constituencies who are raging and leaning towards operating as independents, or even towards starting third parties. Already, there's a "Tea" party being discussed and there are more people who identify themselves as independents than as either Democrats or Republicans.

The fact is, the web and the media have changed the basic rules. The grassroots are connected in new ways, like never before. Glenn Beck's madness can be reinforced on right wing blogs and media sites. Tea partier activities can be shared by listserves and e-mail blasts, whereas in the past, it took money and much more time for bulk mailing via the post office, by conservatives like Richard Viguerie, to get the word out.

The grass roots are the ultimate "bottom" and they have more power than perhaps any time in history. But they can be influenced, aggregated, coalesced and whipped up by top-down powers, forces and entities. Top-down groups that thought they had control of bottom-up groups and energies will more and more find that they have created powerful new coalitions that they have no power over. It's unlikely this will stop top-down organizations from creating, encouraging or exploiting these groups. But it will, or at least should get them to change their expectations and the way they handle these forces of nature that are no longer in their control.

That doesn't seem to be happening with the Republican party today. It may be because the forces of wildness -- Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and their imitators -- have become more powerful than any of the top-down leaders, like Michael Steele, who in some ways, has echoed the sentiments and messages that have emerged from the grassroots teapartiers.

What happens when the bottom causes the top to adopt its ideas and issues? Sometimes craziness, but sometimes democracy, and maybe even elected officials actually representing the true interests and concerns of their constituents. Or those elected officials could just represent the loudest voices. That's also a bottom up consideration. Squeaky wheels will always get the grease.

Crossposted from OpEdNews.com

Andy Ostroy: You Are Not a "Great American," Sean Hannity

2009-11-10T19:20:10Z

I have a huge problem with Sean Hannity. And we all should. He is anything but the "great American" he and his brainwashed listeners delusionally call each other every five minutes. In fact, to the contrary, he's about as unpatriotic as they come. He roots for America to fail just so he can keep spewing his partisan venom at President Obama and Democrats. Shame on him.

I say this not as a Democrat who's upset with him, because I'm not. Truth is, I and most other Democrats couldn't care less what he has to say. We find him ignorant and insignificant and can't believe anyone actually chooses to listen to him on the merits. But what's most shameful about him is how he blatantly lies and deceives his own audience. People who put their trust and faith in him. And he pays them back by feeding them bullshit at every possible turn. If only they know just how full of crap he is. But their ignorance of the facts is exactly what he preys on. As ill-informed as heis on the issues, they make him appear smart. And that's not easy.

Hannity on Friday was predicting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lacked the votes needed to pass the health-care reform bill, or "Pelosi-Care" as he calls it. That the measure had hit a wall and that Democrats were abandoning ship. He smugly mocked Pelosi, complete with devilish Dick Dastardly cackle, because she had been predicting the bill's passage. Oh, how just a few hours can make someone look completely out of touch. As usual, wrong again Sean.

Hannity, like most disingenuous right-wing talking-heads, has been wetting himself over what he claims to be a "horrible week for Democrats." Give these guys a couple of gubernatorial victories and they predict the Rise and Fall of the Obama Empire. Truth is, on a national level, Democrats have won every single House and Senate special election over the past year, including two last Tuesday. Every one. If there's any referendum going on here it's on the Republican Party and its incumbents, not Obama. Voters are resoundingly rejecting conservatives from New York to California. Hannity and his fellow liars can yap all they want about the significance of Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell's gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia respectively, but these two statewide contests prove nothing on the national scale. They were fought and won primarily on local issues. Given all the victories the left's piled up in the House and Senate under Obama, I'd be worried if I were Michael Steele and his GOP. And as for last week? With the two House wins and the health-care bill's passage, I'd say it was a pretty good one for Democrats. Nice try, Sean.

Hannity also incessantly lies to his listeners about the economy. He simply cannot admit there's been significant improvement. He rails on that this is now "Obama's economy," yet deceptively shields his audience from the truth about how the president and his economic team have pulled the nation back from the brink of financial Armageddon this time last year. You won't hear him talk of GDP growth, huge declines in job losses or recovery in the banking, housing, retail and auto industries. You won't hear him discuss the Dow's rise from 6500 to 10,000. Don't hold your breath waiting for anything truthful such as, "While we still have a long way to go, we sure have come a long way and are seeing many signs of improvement." Of course not. That would make him honest and objective.

Sorry Sean, but this is definitely not Obama's economy. Obama's trying, and very deftly I might add, to fix the shitstorm Bush dumped in his lap. In office just 10 months, the worst economy since The Great Depression is no more Obama's than the 9-11 attacks were Bush's fault.

If Sean Hannity truly wants to be the "great American" he claims to be, he can start by being truthful to his listeners and by not rooting for his supposedly beloved America to fail.

Scozzafava Tells Her Story: 'My Name's A Verb Now'

2009-11-10T00:13:08Z

Over Halloween weekend, Dede Scozzafava morphed from a rosy-cheeked Republican mom to a political figure of speech.

"My name's a verb now," she said.

Michael Steele: Some White Republicans Are 'Scared Of Me'

2009-11-09T15:18:26Z

The following article was produced by the Raw Story and written by David Edwards.

Since being elected the first African-American RNC chairman, Michael Steele has gotten into some brief internecine spats for a number of bordering-on-insurgent quips against his party, but his latest might be destined to haunt him forever. And perhaps it's another indication that his heart isn't in the right place and that deep down he might think that he's speaking for the wrong party, even.

During a weekend interview, Michael Steele told TV One's Roland Martin that he has experienced fear from other selected members of his party because of the color of his skin.

"I mean I've been in the room and they've been scared of me," the RNC chairman said about fellow Republicans.

Partial transcript:

MARTIN: How do you -- granted, a popular president got 95% of the black vote -- you got any shot at getting black voters and if so what are the two issues that speaks to black voters for Republican have a shot at them?

STEELE: Education and the economy. Education and jobs. Education and small business.

MARTIN: But your candidates got to talk to them. One of the criticisms I've always had is Republicans -- white Republicans -- have been scared of black folks.

STEELE: You're absolutely right. I mean I've been in the room and they've been scared of me. I'm like, "I'm on your side" and so I can imagine going out there and talking to someone like you, you know, [you're like,] "I'll listen." And they're like "Well." Let me tell you. You saw in Christie and you saw in McDonnell a door open because they went in and engaged. McDonnell was very deliberate about spending --

MARTIN: Right.

STEELE: I mean, Sheila Johnson was on his team. I mean, that was a big deal. That's because he engaged her and she helped navigate him through that relationship.

(via NewsOne)

A selected sampling of prior Steele statements that have caused a ruckus include referring to Rush Limbaugh as a practitioner of "ugly" entertainment, claiming he went from "pro-life his entire career" to believing abortion is an "individual choice," offering "slum love" to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, hinting that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney lost in the 2008 presidential primaries because he was Mormon, and suggesting that the GOP was in dire need of a 'hip-hop' makeover.

Other "he said what" quips include his hoping to attract more blacks his party by offering them "fried chicken and potato salad" and joking that the GOP needs "to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets."

In March, Politico reported Steele was "[s]teadily becoming a dependable punch line" due to his frequent gaffes.

"There's frustration that there's no discipline, no planning," a 'well-known Republican consultant' told Politico. "He's risking being overexposed by accepting every interview, which makes gaffes more likely."

More from Politico's March story:

In a lengthy interview, Steele was unapologetic, referring to the high-level GOP critics and skeptics as "nervous Nellies" and saying that he actually has been tempering his public remarks.

"If I told folks what I really thought, I'd probably be in a lot more trouble," he said. "I think that's what I bring to this job, as a voice of the party: I think it's important to have that kind of newness and rawness to it that grabs folks' attention and hopefully ... take a look at what we're doing."

WATCH Michael Steele talk to TV One's Roland Martin HERE.

Susan J. Demas: How Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers Are Blowing Up the GOP

2009-11-09T13:20:31Z

Wingnuts of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but election ... after election ... after election.

That's the lesson from the far right's stinging defeat in yet another Republican congressional district this week. Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman harangued GOP Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava into dropping out -- hailed as a huge victory for Real Republicans -- and then the clueless teabagger-cum-carpetbagger went on to lose the upstate New York seat to a little-known Democrat.

Brilliant strategy.

But it's one we've seen from Republicans over and over again, thanks to the shadowy anti-tax group Club for Growth. Its first scalp was in Michigan -- moderate former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Battle Creek), who was ousted by preacher Tim Walberg in the 2006 primary.

For the extreme right, victory was sweet. And short-lived.

Walberg managed to do two years later what Republicans thought impossible when they carved out the 57-percent GOP district -- relinquish it to a Democrat. And not some Blue Dog, Dem-come-lately, but Mark Schauer, the pro-choice minority leader of the state Senate with a penchant for voting for tax hikes.

But that was just the beginning. Obsessed with hunting RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), CFG has bagged an impressive list, including U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), U.S. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) and now Scozzafava.

There's just one problem. All of these seats are now held by Democrats, who thank their lucky stars that there are 40,000 gullible conservative ideologues willing to bankroll a group that's done almost as much to help their cause as silver-tongued President Obama.

So what is Club for Growth, really? Think of it as the spiritual godfather of the Tea Party movement -- they were baggin' before baggin' was cool (and sponsored by Fox News).

Officials claim ad nauseum, as President Chris Chocola did recently to The Atlantic, that there's no litmus test on social issues, but that seems laughable. It's worth noting that both he and former CFG Chief Pat Toomey (whose greatest accomplishment is turning Sen. Arlen Specter into a Democrat) were religious right darlings in Congress.

Like Hoffman and Walberg, Club-endorsed candidates almost unfailingly are anti-abortion hard-liners who will rant about the evils of gay marriage all day long if you ask. Besides CFG, their biggest backers are Right to Life, the Minuteman groups and gun-rights organizations who (coincidentally, of course) all launch strikingly similar attacks.

Hoffman went into Tuesday the odds-on favorite. Pundits were already crowning him the Tea Party King and a sign of impending doom for the Dems next year. Club for Growth officials puffed up their chests let it be known that they were a-comin' for GOP Gov. Charlie Crist down in Florida.

But a funny thing happened. Hoffman lost, thanks in no small part to Scozzafava's endorsement of Democrat Bill Owens (just as Schauer can thank Schwarz for his seat).

But you'd never know it from the alternate-reality universe of the extreme right. Erick Erickson of Redstate.com immediately declared Owens' win a "huge victory for conservatives."

Yes, there's nothing like the convoluted wisdom of someone who fails to realize Orwell was being ironic in "1984" with the slogan, "Ignorance is strength."

But no one can top the scatological acrobatics of Rush Limbaugh, who accused Scozzafava of "widespread bestiality," adding that she's "screwed every RINO in the country." Now that's quality programming for the family values set.

Of course, it was the rabid, pitchfork-waving horde of Rush, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey and the once-respectable Tim Pawlenty that screwed the party here. Blather all you want that Scozzafava and Owens are one and the same, but those of us in the real world know that the average member of Congress will vote with his or her party at least 80 percent of time.

Ronald Reagan knew that. But then again, he was interested in winning and governing, not leading a conservative circle jerk.

Club for Growth is uncowed, ready for jihad against Crist, Carly Fiorina in the California Senate race and a host of other Republicans whom leaders deem insufficiently batty. Being fundamentally nihilistic, CFG disciples don't care if they lose 10 races, so long as they eventually win one.

Their intimidation campaign is working. Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele quickly warned the anemic GOP minority in Congress to "walk a little bit carefully" on votes. Translation: Vote for ideology, not your districts' interests or feel the purge, baby.

Although centrist Illinois U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk knows he'll never get the Club's blessing for Obama's old Senate seat, he's scrambling to lock down an early Palin endorsement to inoculate himself against right-wing venom. It's a curious twist, since when the Chicago Tribune asked him in '08 if the sassy former Wasilla mayor (population 6,700) was qualified to be a heartbeat from the presidency, Kirk sagely replied, "Quite frankly, I don't know."

This is a game moderates are bound to lose. The deck is stacked against them in primaries dominated by pro-lifers and Tea Partiers. They exercise outsize influence, not just because their obnoxiousness makes for good tee-vee, but because centrists inexplicably don't vote in primaries.

But reality sets in come the general election, when extremists are a minority -- and typically a small one at that. Suddenly, reasonable Republicans and independents come out of the woodwork. And to the spoils go the Democrats, who look comparatively sane.

There is a way for moderates to fight back, but it's a nuclear option. Why not let CFG puppets take GOP primaries and then run well-known moderates as independents in the general? They might not win, but they'd at least guarantee the Kool-Aid drinkers would go down.

Bet that would grab the party poobahs' attention. Kind of hard to ignore folks with their finger on the button.

Quick Reversal: Steele We "Screw" Ourselves By Targeting Our Own

2009-11-05T17:37:30Z

Hours after Michael Steele warned moderate Republicans that they woud be targeted if they didn't support conservative principles, the RNC Chairman called discussion of intra-party feuding "stupid" and insisted that the GOP would lose if "we play politics amongst our own."

In a conference call with grassroots Republicans leaders to thank them for the work they did in winning two governor's seats in the 2009 election, Steele laid out a blueprint for expanding on the early success. The RNC chair stressed the need to avoid having Republicans target one another. "It is the first way to screw yourself," he said.

Reflecting on the lost House seat in New York's 23rd District, Steele insisted that the process had been flawed.

"We had some ugly hiccups and NY 23 was one of those hiccups," he said. "I was brought into it after the fact, when a nominee who did not fit that district was chosen for purely political reasons."

By not having a truly democratic primary process in place, Steele proclaimed, the GOP was left in a state of dissatisfied infighting over the chosen nominee. Going forward he pledged to host more "fair and open" primaries.

"The consequence of [not having that in place] is we are mired in a very stupid discussion about conservatives versus moderates and conservatives versus Republicans," he said. "When we play politics amongst our own, we lose."

Hours earlier, Steele was sounding a noticeably different tune -- all but calling on the party to ideologically purge itself of moderates. In an interview with ABC News, the RNC chairman warned those candidates "who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts" that they would have "to walk a little bit carefully" when it came time to vote.'

"[Y]ou do not want to put yourself in a position where you're crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we'll come after you," Steele said.

Those remarks were a nod, of sorts, to the growing political persuasion of the tea party movement -- which forced Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate in NY-23, to drop her bid for the House seat. But even those comments resembled a flip-flop of sorts for the RNC chair. Steele had, as the Huffington Post's Jason Linkin's noted, defended GOP moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) just one day earlier after the Maine Republican came under attack by Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty for lacking the proper conservative bona fides.

Well before then, as the Washington Post's Ezra Klein recalled, Steele was pitching himself as the man who would bring the Republican Party to a more modern and moderate place.

"Do folks remember when Steele was the "anonymous Senate candidate" badmouthing George W. Bush to a room of reporters?" Klein writes. "The guy who was trying to come off as a moderate because, as he said, 'If this race is about Republicans and Democrats, I lose.' Whatever happened to that guy?"

Michael Steele Flip-Flops On Moderate Republicans [UPDATE]

2009-11-05T16:06:36Z

Remember Election Night 2009? The big takeaway from the 23rd District of New York -- where Democrat Bill Owens prevailed as the first Democrat to win that Congressional seat since the Ice Age -- was that conservatives were at war with each other. Brother against brother! Establishment against fringe! Well, as it turns out, that battle is being waged most bloodily inside the Imaginarium Of Michael Steele.

Yesterday, Michael Steele was defending Delicate Flower of Center-Right Moderation Olympia Snowe from the stern rhetoric of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, telling the Morning Joe coffee-klatsch:

"I say, Welcome. Welcome. Each member of this party has a unique footprint. And it's different from region to region. I can't win in the Northeast with a candidate best suited for the South and vice-versa."

But that was yesterday, when the largest looming concern was the NY23-FAIL. Today, Capitol Hill is ramped up into Bachmann Tea Party Overdrive, and Michael Steele is suddenly drawing down on anyone who thinks they're gonna bring their "unique footprint" into his "big tent":

"So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you're crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we'll come after you," Steele continued.

"You're gonna find yourself in a very tough hole if you're arguing for the president's stimulus plan or Nancy Pelosi's health plan. There's no justification for growing the size of government the way this administration and this Congress wants to do it."

So there you have it: Michael Steele is sort of riding a wave of confusing emotions.

UPDATE: Wow. Michael Steele is just spinning like a pinwheel, trying to decide what sort of Republicans he likes and what sort he doesn't. Via Sam Stein:

Hours after Michael Steele warned moderate Republicans that they woud be targeted if they didn't support conservative principles, the RNC Chairman called discussion of intra-party feuding "stupid" and insisted that the GOP would lose if "we play politics amongst our own."

More from Sam, here.

RELATED:
Meet The New, Very Violent Michael Steele [Wonkette]
Hitching Wagon to Tea Partiers, Steele Threatens to 'Come After' GOP Moderates [The Washington Independent]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Andy Ostroy: A "Republican Renaissance?" Yeah, and I Hear the Mullet's Coming Back Too

2009-11-05T09:46:47Z

There's colossal joy in Mudville this week as Republicans predict sweeping success in next year's mid-term elections in the wake of Chris Christie's and Bob McDonnell's gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia respectively, and in what they say is a clear repudiation of President Obama and Democrats' "liberal agenda." A newly energized GOP Chairman Michael Steele is calling it all a "Republican renaissance." Talk about premature ejaculation.

But the real picture is anything but rosy for the GOP. The truly bigger race, in upstate New York, handed them a humiliating defeat in the solidly red 23rd Congressional District, where a Democrat hasn't won the House seat in over 100 years. This was a national election based on national issues, and therefore a clear affirmation, not a repudiation, of Obama's performance -- something which Steele, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all the other propagandists are conveniently ignoring but are shaking in their Uggs over. Christie and McDonnell won on purely local issues. Their victories mean absolutely nothing on the national stage. The real takeaway from Tuesday is that voters still want change; the sort of change that does not bode well for the GOP.

But Democrats should not be complacent or assume the tide is with them. An early warning to the left: be very, very leery of your counterparts across the aisle. They are angry, resentful and desperately want to be back in power. They will do and say anything to achieve that end. And they're pretty good at it. Great at propaganda. Skilled in truth-stretching. Will even lie through their venomous teeth to get what they want. And now they're reinvigorated. Their victories this week have left them with a euphoric, and inflated, sense of self and entitlement. The Republican orgasmatron is in high-gear, with promises of the proverbial happy-ending. The talking-heads are now bragging that most of the country is conservative, anti-big-government, anti-abortion, faith-based, pro-war, tea-baggin' Obama-haters who will kick Democrats to the curb next year. To the contrary though, as Democrat Bill Owens' victory in NY's 23rd indicates, voters continue to be trading in their Republican clunkers for the newer Democratic model.

GOP's Internal Ideological Battles Remain After Victories

2009-11-04T22:48:56Z

A rebounding Republican Party savored victories in two states that President Obama won last year, but as it tries to build momentum toward what GOP Chairman Michael S. Steele called a "Republican renaissance," it faces troubling ideological fissures within its ranks over how best to reclaim power.

Chris Matthews Thinks Health Care Reform Is Being "Hung Up By The Left"

2009-11-04T18:27:52Z

On this evening's edition of Hardball, Chris Matthews hosted Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele, and the two men proceeded to have the following preposterous conversation:

STEELE: Excuse me. What about the left wingnuts who won't let the President get his agenda through? What about all the left wingnuts that are the reason we don't have health care right now? You have 60 votes in the Senate. You have a 78-seat majority in the House and I don't see anyone talking about the left wingnuts who are stifling the health care for my mother, my family and my community. Don't give me the name calling. That was a political process. Now we are talking real things here when you talk about the Democratic Party the division is real because we don't have health care. The division is real because we have --

MATTHEWS: Interesting. The President would be better off if he didn't have a left and he could push a more moderate health care bill.

STEELE: I don't know. That is the choice the Democrats have to make. I'm embracing my party, I'm embracing--

MATTHEWS: You are making it for me. You are saying something smart. That the President of the United States has to make a tough discerning decision to find the kind of bill that will pass and pass it instead of being hung up by his far left?

Yeah. Not only is that not "something smart" to say, it is a rivetingly dumb thing to say and Matthews has nary a fact on hand to support his cosigning of Steele's contention.

I'll concede Steele's point that the significant majorities the Democrats enjoy in both the House and the Senate make the Republicans irrelevant to the health care discussion. But there's a reason you don't hear "anyone talking about the left wingnuts who are stifling the health care." It's because there are no left wingnuts stifling the health care bill!

Just as an example, here, once again, are the Senators who are doing more than anyone else to stifle the health care reform bill. They include such luminaries as Joe Lieberman, Olympia Snowe, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Kent Conrad, and Blanche Lincoln, and there's nary a "left wingnut" among them! The facts are these: the progressive membership of both houses have been nothing but accommodating to the health care process. From Jump Street, the legislators to Obama's left willingly bargained away the single-payer health care system they favored in order to lend unified support behind a reform package that was more sellable to moderate Democrats and Republicans. They ended up uniting behind the "public option," only to discover that President Obama wasn't willing to say much in praise of that idea other than to say, "Yeah, sure, that public option thingy would be neat, I guess?"

The sum total of progressive obstructionism came when a progressive bloc in the House of Representatives briefly let it be known that they would not support a bill that did not contain a public option. Did health care reform get "stifled" in the House as a result? No! The bill that will be sent forth for a vote contains a public option! So, what has the "left" stopped from happening, exactly? Meanwhile, the Senate's reform bill waters down the public option still further, into the "opt out" version. So, once again, progressives have given ground, have done nothing but accommodate the process, and in the end they may be asked to give still more ground, to get a watered down version of the health care bill that Obama sometimes says he wants, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

And really, having given ground on the matter three or four times already, how could anyone object to "the left" refusing to bargain away anything further? Let's remember, public option supporters are reflecting the will of a vast majority of the American people. You really cannot pretend that 55-75% of the country is a "wingnut fringe."

Chris Matthews is supposed to be some sort of shrewd and meticulous chronicler of political reality, but if he really thinks Steele is offering a smart idea, he needs to have his head examined. There is not one single shred of reality to back up Matthews' contention that the "left" is gumming up the health care reform process. That is what we call a "nimrod fantasia." But let's call the ball where it lies: Chris Matthews doesn't really care about reporting political fact, he cares about pleasing Michael Steele with enough adequacy so that he'll return to his show to share more of his so-called wisdom.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Andy Ostroy: One Spin You Won't Hear From Republicans About Tuesday's Election

2009-11-04T17:28:19Z

Democrats lost two key elections Tuesday: the gubernatorial races in New Jersey, where Republican Chris Christie defeated incumbent Jon Corzine, and in Virginia, where Bob McDonnell defeated Creigh Deeds in a special election to fill the vacating Tim Kaine's seat.

As expected, the Republican spin-machine is in euphoric overdrive, maniacally labeling these victories a broad repudiation of President Obama's "liberal agenda" and an ominous foreshadowing of things to come for Democrats in next year's midterms. Granted, a strong night for theGOP -- winning is always better than losing -- but hardly a sign of any tidal waves of conservatism sweeping the nation, as right-wing pundits are boasting.

But what you won't hear the spinners crowing about is the shocking punch to the gut the GOP took in upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District, where a Democrat won for the first time in over 100 years. That's right, 100 years. Despite massive support from right-wing heavyweight (pun intended) Rush Limbaugh and GOP oracle Sarah Palin, Republican Doug Hoffman was defeated by Democrat Bill Owens, for whom Obama campaigned aggressively. Let me be the first to say that Owens' win is a resounding affirmation of Obama's performance.

It's important to note that, unlike NY's 23rd, the NJ and Virginia elections were won on statewide and local issues. Christie's victory can be attributed to two central themes: corruption and property taxes. Hardly a referendum on Obama or Democrats nationally. And Virginia? Well, that solidly red state hadn't voted for a Democratic president since 1964. It's a bit of a stretch to say McDonnell's win is a reshaping of the broader national political landscape. Remember that former Governor Kaine was a conservative Democrat and Obama's victory last year was a huge upset. Let's keep things in perspective: it's not like McDonnell turned Massachusetts red.

Speaking of his victory and what it all means, Christie said, "Tomorrow we're going to take back New Jersey for the least fortunate, who don't want government to fix every problem." Yeah, if we can be certain about one thing, it's that poor folks hate all that government assistance. Medicaid? Public education? Food stamps? Cash-for-clunkers? Home-buying tax credits? Mortgage relief? Yes, I'm sure the "least fortunate" would much rather see those most fortunate rich folk get huge tax cuts instead. So now Christie's "least fortunate" got what they wanted: Chris Christie to the rescue to save them from all that big-government, problem-fixing aid to the little guy. Jeez, will the little guy ever learn?

On the overall significance of Tuesday's victories for conservatives, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said, "America, through the voices of those folks in New Jersey and Virginia, had something to say." Really? And what exactly did they have to say up in NY's 23rd, where a Democrat hasn't won in over a century? Does the good chairman heed that voice, and what it says about how voters on a national level view his party and its candidates? Apparently, voters still want change, and man, did the GOP get change in NY's 23rd. Let that be a foreshadowing of things to come for the myopic, narrow-minded, small-tented, shrinking fringe-right base of the Republican Party next year.

By the way, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was re-elected after spending a reported $100-million+ to defeat Comptroller Bill Thompson by just 5%. A very painful reminder of how and why the rich often dominate politics. Interesting to think who'd be sitting in City Hall right now had Thompson's war-chest been fatter, or Bloomberg's smaller...

Steele: Reports Of Ideological Division In GOP Are "Phony"

2009-11-04T10:51:24Z

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said on Wednesday that the philosophical disputes erupting within the GOP, which manifested themselves in last night's special election in upstate New York, were "phony" and the creation of an overzealous media.

Speaking to reporters after Republicans swept two gubernatorial lessons but lost a long-held congressional seat in New York's 23rd district, Steele chose to emphasis the sweet over the sour.

"The Republican renaissance has begun," he declared at one point, "and it has begun in earnest."

But the elephant in the room was hard to push away. A slew of reporters quizzed the chairman over what, exactly, had gone wrong in NY-23 -- where the Republican Party candidate Dede Scozzafava was pushed out of the race only to watch the Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman lose a seat that had been in GOP hands since the 1800s.

Steele stressed that the problem was institutional. Had there been an actual Republican primary in place, there would have been no fracture inside the GOP tent. But when asked if he was concerned about this phenomenon repeating itself (as it seems likely to happen) in other congressional races in 2010, he lashed back at the press

"No," he proclaimed. "You know what I'm concerned about? I'm concerned about is the fact that in the United States Senate the Democrats have 60 seats and can't pass a health care bill. You know what I'm concerned about? I'm concerned about the division that exist within the House caucus between the Blue Dogs and the Speaker, that are ramming down a vote that they are going to have to cast that I'm going to chew them up on next year. That's what I'm concerned about."

"We can look at NY-23," he went on. "We can look at this phony fight between conservatives and moderates within the GOP. The reality is, the country, the country, the country is stagnated when it comes to the lack of a health care policy. When it comes to a lack of a fiscal policy. That to me is a bigger concern rather than ideological disputes within a political party."

"Now, it makes for great script for you guys. It makes for great news and noise for the talking heads, for those who like to drum up this stuff. That's why I call it phony. Because it is not reality. For the person who just lost their job do you really think they care? If you got fired when you left this press conference would you really be concerned about a philosophical difference between conservatives and moderates in the Republican Party."

The impression left was obvious: Steele would have been content with any Republican candidate, provided that he or she could win. He was asked, earlier, for instance, about the need for ideological purity within the GOP's ranks, and responded by saying he didn't see the value in "losing seats."

"I'm not in the business of division and subtraction," he said. "I'm in the business of multiplication and addition. I want more Republicans going to Congress. I want more Republicans going to the statehouse. I want more republicans running out counties and our cities. Because I think Republicans do it better."

"Winning is a lot sweeter and if you don't think last night was sweet you need to go see a doctor."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Steele: Election Results Show "Transcendent" GOP

2009-11-04T08:16:43Z

WASHINGTON — An ebullient Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele asserted Wednesday that GOP victories in governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia demonstrate "a transcendent party" on the move again. The White House said the elections were not a repudiation of President Barack Obama.

"We're not crowing, we're just smiling," Steele said in a nationally broadcast interview. "I think it's a bellwether for the party ... You look at where we were nine months ago."

Jonathan Kim: ReThink Review: Outrage -- One Reason Why the Bird/Shepard Hate Crimes Act Took So Long

2009-11-03T15:48:07Z

How do you get republicans, who take such pride in their talent for "supporting the troops" and "defending America", to vote against a defense bill in the midst of two wars? Make it a defense bill that defends gay people!

That's right -- 35 republican senators voted against the defense bill because it contained a provision called the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would make it a federal hate crime to assault someone based on sexual orientation, gender and gender identity. This legislation has languished in Congress since 1998, the year that Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student, was kidnapped, tortured and killed by two men because he was gay. That same year, Byrd, a 49-yr-old black man, was chained to a pickup truck and dragged to death by white supremacists.

Republican-controlled Congresses during the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations (along with the threat of a Bush Jr. veto) kept this legislation from a presidential signature, which still had to be attached to this year's defense bill to ensure it wouldn't be blocked by a republican filibuster.

Why do repubs hate this hate crimes bill so much that they would risk their "I support the troops!" credentials by voting against it? Their justifications have ranged from the hypocritical (abuse of Senate procedure) to the nonsensical (being gay is a choice, whereas religion is not) to the irrational (the bill will prosecute "thought crimes").

But the main reason is because hatred/fear of gays is running neck-and-neck with hatred/fear of government for the most defining, unifying characteristic of the "modern" republican party. Gay marriage or anything that would lead to increased acceptance of gay people is considered unacceptable and a danger to America. This was perhaps best exemplified by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) who claimed that the Shepard/Bird hate crimes bill would lead to legalized necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia, and somehow, Nazism (though Gohmert is not the first republican to make these comparisons). It has been the repub party's go-to surefire way to energize their base and get them to the polls.

That's right -- as this latest vote proves, republicans now hate gays more than they love militarism and love pretending they give a damn about soldiers.

How did the republicans get this way? Don't they have any gay friends or colleagues who could set them straight (no pun)? As Kirby Dick's excellent 2009 documentary Outrage shows, they probably do, whether they be gay staffers, members of the media, or even fellow repub congressmen. But as the film points out, many of these gay republicans are so profoundly closeted that they attempt to disguise their sexuality by fighting against every piece of legislation that could be construed as helping gay people, from gay marriage to gay couples being allowed to adopt to the Shepard/Bird hate crimes act. By doing this, these closeted repubs effectively distort the debate on gay rights because their votes have little to do with justice or sound policy analysis and everything to do with their own shame, hypocrisy, and the GOP's desire to pander to their homophobic base.

Watch my ReThink Review of Outrage below.

For more political movie reviews, visit ReThinkReviews.net.

Michael J.W. Stickings: Downplaying the Uninsured: Michael Steele and the Ongoing Republican Propaganda Campaign to Derail Health-Care Reform

2009-10-20T13:32:18Z

My friend Mustang Bobby flagged the Steele-Univision interview yesterday, focusing on the RNC chair's comments on immigration (which were appallingly ignorant in their flag-waving superficiality), but I wanted to post here on his comments on health-care reform:

Jorge Ramos - Republican Senator Olympia Snowe has announced that she will vote for a healthcare reform bill. Are you disappointed, do you expect more Republicans to vote for it?

Michael Steele - I don't, if it's what we've seen produced so far in the House and in the Senate. I don't think we need a comprehensive overhaul of our healthcare system because our healthcare system, while it remains the best in the country and while it provides largely the services that people need and the quality of those services are very, very good, there are costs associated with this system that needs to be address more directly.

Jorge Ramos - But there are 40 or 50 million people who don't have health insurance. Right?

Michael Steele - The President himself has said it's not 40 to 50 number one, number two, the President himself has reduced that number to 30 and the actual number of people who legitimately need to access this healthcare system are around 12 to 15 million, but if that's the number, I'll take your 40 to 50 million if that is the number you want to use, the question then becomes, how much, who pays and where does the money come from and the administration continues to fail to address that issue in an honest way for the people to appreciate exactly what this cost is going to be for a complete overhaul of our system versus what Republicans have argued... It's commonsense solution, it doesn't require a nationalizing of our healthcare system, and it doesn't involve or require a great government intrusion through regulation and taxation and other confiscatory policies. What it requires is applying a little, you know elbow grease, to allow those businesses, those Hispanic businesses for example, under the market place and get the healthcare that they need.

First, it is simply delusional to think that an overhaul of the health-care system isn't needed. And it's the usual right-wing flag-waving to assert that the American system is the best system (simply because it's American, it would seem, for there is little to back up the assertion). Yes, I admit, the American system is quite excellent, in some respects, like research and innovation. But you can't fully access the system unless you have a lot of money, and, what's more, costs are spiralling out of control.

Second, one of the key components of the Republican opposition to meaningful reform involves claiming that there are far fewer uninsured Americans than people think. So it isn't 40 or 50 million, or even 30 million, it's more like 12 to 15 million -- as if this somehow makes reform unnecessary. It is difficult to pin down an exact number, but, according to the bipartisan National Coalition on Health Care, Census data show that about 47 million Americans, or roughly 20 percent of the population under 65, were uninsured in 2008. This is backed up by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, according to this 2005 brief, put the number at 45.8 million. The number of uninsured in 2007 was 45.7 million.

In August of this year, NPR looked behind that 45.7 million number. There were 45.7 million Americans who were uninsured at some point that year. While this means that not everyone who is uninsured is permanently uninsured, the problem is not diminished. There were still that many people who at some point didn't have any coverage and couldn't seek the care they may have needed. NPR also notes the key conservative arguments: that some of the 45.7 million have Medicaid and falsely reported lacking insurance; that many of those without insurance are not American citizens, including many undocumented immigrants; and that many of those without insurance qualify for existing programs but haven't signed up. "So, are there really 46 million uninsured?" NPR asks. "It's the current best guess, but it might be off by several million." Yes, but the reality is that "[w]hatever the exact figure, tens of millions of people don't have insurance."

The number of uninsured is certainly much higher than the 12 to 15 million range Steele suggested, and much higher than other reform opponents would have us believe. But even if it were "just" 12 to 15 million... that's still 12 to 15 million people! And while I realize that 12 to 15 million people in a country as large as the U.S. is smaller proportionally than a similar number in, say, Canada (where, of course, there is universal coverage), it's still a huge number. How is any system that leaves 12 to 15 million people without coverage -- and hence without adequate care -- a good system, let alone the best system in the world? How is any such system fair and decent and just and humane? Forget 12 to 15 million. How about a million, or a thousand, or one? How is a system that leaves anyone without coverage a good system? Yes, there may be people who choose, for whatever reason, to opt out, who don't want insurance of any kind, but that should be a choice. Everyone, I think, should at least have the choice to have sufficient insurance to be able to seek adequate care. (I would probably mandate at least minimal coverage (but not specific care), but that's another matter.)

But let's get back to the point: It's not 12 to 15 million, it's 45+ million. And that is simply unacceptable -- a gross injustice in a land supposedly of plenty.

Back to Steele's comments:

Third, the reform packages currently under consideration on Capitol Hill do not propose nationalization, nor "great government intrusion." Not a single one of them. At most, there would be a public option: an option, a choice. The health-care market would not be replaced with a government-run single-payer system, it would be augmented with an additional choice -- a choice that would bring many of the currently uninsured into the system. How is that a bad thing?

It isn't. But Republicans like Steele -- and he is, at least by title, the head of the GOP -- oppose any and all reform and are obviously willing to lie and deceive in order to achieve their obstructionist aims.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)