Republicans need their own constitutional convention
Assembly minority leader -- one might almost call him the "passingly small minority" leader -- Brian Kolb has been barnstorming New York state raising interest in a constitutional convention.
The mantra: New York state is broken.
Fair enough. There's plenty of evidence to support his argument. But physician, please. Heal thyself already!
With news this week that Rudy Giuliani is out of the 2010 race (ANY race) and former governor George Pataki apparently sitting comfy on the sidelines, the statewide GOP is officially flatline.
The party doesn't have a single serious contender for statewide office. (Rick Lazio has a ways to go before he's a serious contender.
Republicans are losing big races in the North Country, for goodness sake.
And the line-up to face freshman Democrat (and relative unknown) Senator Kirsten Gillibrand consists of this stellar cast (from the NY Times):
Michael Balboni, a former state senator from Long Island; Bruce A. Blakeman, a former Nassau County legislator who ran for comptroller in 1998 but was defeated 2 to 1 by H. Carl McCall; and Elizabeth N. Feld, the mayor of the village of Larchmont (population 6,567), who was trounced in a State Senate race in 2008.The good news in this week's decision by Giuliani is that it effectively wipes the slate clean. There's never been a better opportunity for a fresh start.
But Ed Cox, head of New York's Republican committee, will have to think big.
He will have to redefine exactly what the GOP wants to stand for in this Northeastern, urban-dominated state.
Will it still be the party of "upstate vs. downstate"? Will it be a party with almost no minority representation?
Will it be a party that embraces the social conservatism that defines the national Republican Party?
Will it tap into the "tea party" vitality visible in some parts of the state? Or hone the message to small-government fiscal conservatism?
What does the GOP do about abortion and same-sex marriage?
Will the new GOP maintain the kind of cozy insider-Albany relationships revealed by the Joe Bruno corruption trial, or embrace serious ethics reform?
Two things are clear:
First, we need a strong Republican Party in New York state, one to balance and challenge the Democrats.
And second, this ain't it. It's time for NY GOP 2.0.
Fortunately, there are plenty of signs of life at the grassroots. In last year's elections, Republicans fared surprisingly well in local races, from Nassau County to Syracuse.
The GOP also has a valuable resources in Michael Bloomberg.
The New York City mayor distanced himself from the Republican Party during the Bush years, but he's developed a centrist, technocrat's agenda that seems to work.
A lot of Republicans distrust Bloomberg -- in part because of his anti-gun stance -- but he's winning and governing and getting things done.
And they're not.
It's time for Mr. Kolb and Mr. Cox to gather all these folks together in one room, say goodbye to the past, and forge a new direction.
posted by Brian Mann @ 12/23/2009 06:56:00 AM
30 Comments
30 Comments:
Bloomberg? Please, the title "Republican" implies at least some fiscal discipline and Constitutional belief. Bloomberg is a progressive fascist disguised as a liberal "Republican".
I'll abstain rather than vote for that fool.
A self-made multi-billionaire a fool? I'm not a huge fan of Mr. Bloomberg, but he's hardly a fool.
Okay, point taken. How about crooked rich progressive fascist instead of fool. That better?
One of my biggest beefs with the conservative movement, dating back to Ronald Reagan, is the dangerous (and I use that word deliberately) erosion of meaning in their language.
I mention it here in response to Bret's post.
To describe a Jewish-American centrist politician as 'fascist' is so inconceivably disconnected from any substantive meaning of that word as to be...well, kind of breathtaking.
Unfortunately, it's common in conservative circles -- and it didn't use to be.
There was a time when we had legitimate policy differences without trotting out terms that could only be used if stripped of all legitimacy.
Some conservative writers have attempted to justify the notion that liberals in America are, in fact, fascists -- despite the fact that the architect of American liberalism, FDR, was an early opponent and chief stalwart against that political ideology.
Signs portraying our current president with a Hitlerian moustache are a common and revolting accessory at conservative rallies.
Frankly, it's ludicrous and pathetic -- and again, dangerous.
As a journalist, and someone who believes in the power of words, this trend is dismaying.
Not because it de-legitimizes the left in America, but because it de-legitimizes (and further radicalizes) the right.
--Brian, NCPR
It seems to me that the Republican Party is very much at odds with and within itself over the definition of what it means to be "Republican."
There aren't a whole lot of potential candidates that seem to meet the low expectations of the
teaparty and birther crowd.
Republicans in droves are presently denying ever hearing of that "compassionate conservative" from Crawford, Texas, much less ever having voted for him.
Which begs the question, where were the teapartiers during the 8 years of the disastrous and semi-fascistic Bush presidency? It seems to me that it took a black man being elected to president to finally motivate the teapartiers to protest their government.
Sarah Palin, she of glitz and no substance -- is now the darling and "great white hope" of this crowd of true believers.
At the national level, Palin is a good thing for the Democrats.
A manure wagon that never runs empty of fertilizer.
A republican constitutional convention would probably ruin the party for good. Rather than reaching a consensus I believe the hot heads and blow hards will likely lead the party to split.
Another potentially good thing for the Democrats.
I wish Mayor Bloomberg was a Democrat. He's a good man.
Brian- you toss terms like "rural white hate" around and take me to task for coming down on a guy who sends his agents out to entrap gun dealers in other states? Sorry, but that seems a bit hypocritical to me. Bloomberg has definite fascist tendencies. His gov't would control far more than he'd let private firms control, he's said as much himself.
Dangerous speech? What's next? A complete stifling of all dissent?
Bret -
A couple of things. First, I've written extensively about rural white culture, with nuance and detail and deep fondness.
Your suggestion that I write superficially and casually about 'rural white hate' is, factually, wrong.
So, nice try.
Your points about Bloomberg's behavior -- entrapping gun dealers and preferring more government regulation -- have nothing, zero, total null connection to fascism.
Again, one of the dangers of conservative language is the erosion of meaning in words.
Government regulation in the United States, while controversial and debatable, is shaped by a democratic process, by elected officials, by the voice of the people.
Regulation is only remotely 'fascist' when democratic checks and balances aren't in place.
We could ban the private ownership of guns, through a democratic amendment of the US Constitution, and it wouldn't be fascist.
It would be a societal decision, handled by a free people. (One, by the way, that I would oppose.)
Mayor Bloomberg has been elected repeatedly. He is a successful businessman and journalist.
His personal track record shows distinctly and unequivocally no fascist tendencies.
Finally, I'll point out that the dominant tendencies of fascism are the murderous hatred of minority groups, including Jews and homosexuals.
Other facets of fascism historically have been a fervent embrace of militarism and the culture of the gun.
One other strawman argument that you throw out is that anyone calling you on your dangerous use of language is trying to stifle dissent.
Please. Another sad aspect of modern conservatism is the victim mentality.
When I call you on an absolutely indefensible choice of words, it's not an attempt to stifle anything.
I WANT the In Box community to argue with the substance of Bloomberg's policies, with the substance of the political challenges we face.
But we can't get there if the language you use is stripped of meaning.
--Brian, NCPR
Thanks, Brian.
If true to the trajectory of past exchanges like this one, Bret will now explain that he is just an untutored, ordinary guy who is fed up with authority figures of any stripe, and close with a verbal flourish of his middle finger.
According to Princetons definition (the first one that popped up)-
Fascism-a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
You're thinking of Italian fascism of the WW2 era Brian, I'm thinking of the Gov't using agents to entrap, of the Gov't reaching beyond it's mandate, of an autocratic tendency in Gov't.
Merriman Webster- "1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
True, the nationalist/racist tendencies are lacking, but the rest is there. Look at his decision to run beyond the traditional term limit. Look at his statements and actions regarding the suppression of his opposition, of any who are at odds with him. His nation (NYC) must be held above all else. His social and economic ideas must triumph and be used. It may not be a perfect definition, but the man is a danger to the nation IMO.
In truth there is no easy definition for the Bloombergs and Obamas of the world. They fit their own mold and remain to be classified. I'm using the term that best fits from my perspective. Progressive fascist is as close as I can come. Give me a more accurate definition if you can, just don't call him a "Republican". The man wants nothing to do with a republic.
And BTW- show me an "ism" that hasn't used militarism and a "culture of the gun" (sword, whatever). Whether it's a monarchy or a mob rule French Revolution, communists/socialists like Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot or our own Republic you will find it. To point at only fascists as clinging to those definitions is factually wrong and incorrect in every sense.
Your history of using "rural white hate" type terms is very evident. Every time you write about your hate of the Senatorial system and the way "rural whites" can actually have a voice rather than being drowned out by urban voting blocks you display it. I find your attempts to limit speech as "hateful" while doing the same thing yourself laughable and hypocritical. You benefit as a journalist from the rights ensured in the same documents that set up this form of Gov't. You benefit as a journalist working for NCPR from the public funding provided by those same Senators, yet you feel their existence is wrong. I find that confusing at best.
The "dangers of conservative language"!!! Where is your outrage at the dangers of liberal language? "Tax" became "contribution" under Clinton and of course none of us knew what "is" meant. "Health care" now means "unconstitutional ability to arrest and jail those who refuse to buy insurance". "Conservative" means "hate filled homophobe revolutionary".
Stand back and look at things Brian. My perspective may not match yours but to try and limit my thoughts as "a victim mentality" or "dangerous" is both wrong and insulting.
http://www.aim.org/briefing/liberal-fascism-explained/
Try Jonah Goldbergs book Brian, that might clue you in to my perspective.
Here's another example of progressive fascism from Harry Reid-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp
Anon 11:44:
SCORE!!!!
The notion that poor Harry Reid is a fascist isn't anything like as wrong-headed as painting Bloomberg with that brush.
But it's still so utterly far off the mark as to be, well, wrong.
Does Reid occasionally overreach? Sure. He's an American politician at the pinnacle of power.
I don't know the details of this particular detail in the healthcare bill.
But to suggest that Reid is a fascist -- or to complain, as the Weekly Standard does (in the link Bret provides) that there are "death panels" hidden within this legislation...it's just time-wastage.
I have read long excerpts of Jonah Goldberg's book.
It is exactly the kind of dangerous twaddle that I've been poking you about, Bret.
There are heaps of legitimate differences between the political factions in the U.S.
Conservatism has important contributions to make to our national dialogue.
(Remember, this post began with me calling for a revival and renewal of the Republican Party.)
But Goldberg's equivocation of the American left (which counts Jews and African Americans among its core supporters) with a right-wing political ideology that committed genocide against religious and ethnic minorities is (and again I use the word deliberately) dangerous.
--Brian, NCPR
Brian Mann said: "The notion that poor Harry Reid is a fascist isn't anything like as wrong-headed as painting Bloomberg with that brush."
Brian, You'd think differently if you read the part in "Liberal Fascism" where Reid and Bloomberg frog-marched Phyllis Schlafly, Lucianne Goldberg and Wm. F. Buckley behind the barracks of that Colorado concentration camp and executed them, then bulldozed them into a mass grave.
It was really awful.
Wolverines!
Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. Wow, I must be a regular John Wilkes Booth. More likely my name is Mudd.
Sorry Brian, there are differing levels of fascism just as there are differing levels and types of communism. I stand by my beliefs. You're certainly entitled to consider me wrong. Continue to tell everyone how "dangerous" dissent is. I'm sure many here would feel the same as you.
I'll continue to wait (in vain no doubt) for you to provide proof you said the same things about those who were advocating Bushs assassination, calling him a fascist, treasonous, etc. After all, a fair minded person would see both sides, wouldn't he? I mean, to call one bad and not the other would imply a certain bias, would it not?
Interesting idea but what would a NY GOP 2.0 look like? If you use Bloomberg as a model, with his more libertarian slant, where do the social conservatives go? They flood to Mike Long's Conservative Party and make this a three-party state?
Here's the definition of fascism from Dictionary.com and the one that comes closest to what I've always thought fascism was.
"1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
If President Obama was a fascist, he would omnipotently silence and suppress the tea party birthers.
Aggressive nationalism seems to be their forté, not his. When people disagree with them, the tea party birthers call their patriotism into question.
And (although many jump to deny it)I tend to believe that racism underlies their movement.
President Bush did elicit strong feelings from the left but I don't recall the more outlandish ones being given the attention that the tea party birthers have been given.
"President Bush did elicit strong feelings from the left but I don't recall the more outlandish ones being given the attention that the tea party birthers have been given."
Of course not Pat, that's part of my point. It's only "dangerous" or "anti American" or "treasonous" or "racist" when it's directed at the progressive side! Where was the media/progressive outrage when Condie Rice was referred to in racially disparaging terms? Where was the progressive/media outrage when books and a movie about assassinating Bush were produced? Where was the media/progressive outrage when forged documents were used to discredit Bushs service record? Where was the progressive/media outrage when straight out lies were told about the Bush Administrations budgets that were written and passed by Democrats? Was Bush praised for having 3 Cabinet level positions filled by blacks? (Sec State, NSA/Sec State, Education) Was Clinton called down because he had NO minorities serving in his cabinet after Ron Browns (questionable) death?
No, it's only "dangerous" when it's some "right wing nut job" questioning anything. As I said, fascist may not be the perfect term to describe Obama/Bloomberg/et al, but until I can come up with a better one it's close. To support an Administration which openly intends to pursue actions that make the Patriot Act look like a Sunday School lesson and yet take me to task for using a term you disagree with makes me doubt you've stepped back to look at the bigger picture. In the past decades both sides have morphed into something unthinkable at one time. And both are as guilty as the other when it comes to corruption, lies, deceit and mismanagement. It's the blatant hypocrisy the irks me the most. I only wish I had a ready record of the statements made by various politicians and media personalities (even here at NCPR) to compare to those now called "dangerous", "treasonous", etc by those same people. I think that would be interesting.
Bret, you create a lot of straw-man arguments.
I've heard all of them before, for many years now. I know for a certainty that many have originated from the mind of Rush Limbaugh.
You make so many outlandish and ad hominum statements that it is hard to debunk them one by one. But let me try my hand at a few.
Legitimate criticism of Condi Rice by the left was racist motivated? And the media didn't cover this aspect? Really?
Bill Clinton made a personal error in judgement, which was subsequently blown all out of proportion by his opponents, basically hamstringing the operation of the Federal Government for years. His marital infidelity was in the media 24/7 and the liberal media didn't cover it?
George Bush does have records showing his wayward service to the Texas Air National Guard, a billet which was opened for him through family connections, out of turn, in order to keep his butt out of Vietnam.
Talk about Obama and his 'birth certificate?' Bush and his allies have buried a vast amount of W's records keeping them out of public sight, including his AWOL from the Air National Guard, DWI arrests and evidence of prior cocaine use.
You say that President Obama's initiatives to undo the vast damage done to our nation by Bush/Cheney are a greater danger to us than the Patriot Act. Really?
Rather than support Bush's inept and corrupt administration, you distance yourself from President Bush, often claiming that he disappointed you. I must take this as an admission that Bush left President Obama a monumental mess requiring monumental initiatives.
I suppose you consider FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society initiatives to have been a greater danger than the Patriot Act?
Bill Clinton had Brown killed? Another conspiracy theory of the "right" as propagated by Rush Limbaugh. It was widely known that Bill Clinton is hugely admired in the Black community and he was nicknamed, "America's first Black President."
Much to the chagrin of all of those white-rural-haters.
Bret:
"Do not go gentle into Obama's good night,
The GOP should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the Right."
Fluff Frank, all fluff. And perspective. After all, Bush was evil and every Democrat has been nothing but goodness and light, right? Democrats don't have conspiracy theories, they have "irrefutable facts". Right.
Where was the media when this cartoon was published Frank? http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/002864.php
Where were they when she was referred to as "Aunt Jemima"?
No where to be seen, that's where.
How about addressing those issues instead of going off on tangents?
Bret,
Whether or not Bush was evil, or some people thought he was, he failed. You would agree with that, wouldn't you? Isn't that the bottom line?
Wars he started but couldn't finish, went from huge surplus to huge deficit, Katrina making the country look like a Third World basket case.
If he were a football coach, he'd have been fired in about 2004.
Going off on tangents? Do you mean therefore, that in attempting to answer the many "tangents" that you went off on in your previous post, I'm going off on tangents? Totally illogical Captain, but I never expect anything different.
OK Bret, to humor you, I've gone back and looked at the cite you posted (I trust that you extend the same courtesy to others when they reference cites/sites for you to review). The article is from the right wing "American Digest" (go figure).
Anyway, this goes back to a political cartoon in 2004, by Patrick Oliphant, who draws outlandish cartoons poking fun at both political parties.
This particular cartoon shows Bush holding Condi Rice on his arm. She is supposed to be a parrot. The only thing mildly racist may be the caricature of Condi's full, feminine lips.
Oliphant portrays Bush as a skinny, hawkish white-man ala "Mr. Monty Burns" of "The Simpsons." Using this example, this cartoon may be a racist attack against rich white men as well.
The dialogue in the cartoon is this -
Bush: How woodums wike to be my Secwatawy of State?
Rice: Awwwk! OK Chief, anything you say Chief. You bet Chief! You're my hero!
Now, Bret, this is not racist material and just because every blowhard talking head on the right latched onto this as an example of "liberal" racism, does not make it so, my color-blind, brother.
Here is what the LA Times had to say about this cartoon:
LA Times today.
"Rice's ability to become an almost clone-like extension of the president � to understand what he wants, to make her only agenda his agenda and to carry out his wishes with unfailing loyalty � has made her invaluable. Remind one of a Parrot?"
Oh, and Bret, there were whispers and rumors that Condi and Bush were having an affair. She was dubbed "Bush's Road Wife." That was probably racist motivated as well, huh? Don't ya reckon? You betcha.
Way, way, way off thread - but to answer your agrieved and breaking heart about Condi Rice being called "Aunt Jemima" she was so labled by liberals within the black community. Is that racism Bret?
According to Cassell's Dictionary of Slang: the term "Aunt Jemima" is sometimes used colloquially as a female version of the derogatory label "Uncle Tom". In this context, the slang term "Aunt Jemima" falls within the "Mammy archetype", and refers to a friendly black woman who is perceived as obsequiously servile or acting in, or protective of, the interests of whites.
Yes, of course Frank, you're right. My apologies for not realizing that any dissent regarding Obama is patently racist while that directed at Rice is good natured humor.
The hypocrisy is evident whether you choose to see it or not. Why not address the double standard Frank? I spent 8 years listening to every Lib I knew take me to task when I criticized Bush and when I supported Bush. I was forced to step back and see things from a larger viewpoint when I was shown to be hypocritical. You need to do the same thing because you have your blinders on.
Now I have no idea what you are talking about.
I didn't make any of the claims that you are attributing to me or the left.
You wrote about a cartoon in the papers back in 2004 and gave that as an example of racism from the left.
You wrote that Rice was derisively called "Aunt Jemima" and the left was never taken to task by the liberal media for it.
I simply answered your allegations and lame examples of lefty racism, proving them to be 'red herrings.'
If this is your proof of racism on the left, you've failed miserably.
I don't view all criticism of Obama as racist inspired. When teapartiers are holding signs with caricatures of Obama as an African tribal witch doctor complete with bone throught his nose...that just might be racist movtivated.
To call Obama an idiot, loser, terrorist lover, worse president ever...that's not racist, its just ignorance.
See the difference?
Yeah,, I see the difference. When it's a right side subject that's called what can be construed as "racist" names, etc. it's all well and good. When it's a left sider then it's certainly racist and the hate filled Klansman that said it should hang. Simple as that.
If you really can't see the double standard in play then you are truly blind. Your defense "proves" nothing but that you refuse to open your eyes.
Lets back up to the post before you joined in- why is it that anyone displaying any dissent towards this administration is treasonous and a hate monger, yet the left wing radicals that produced books and a movie about assassinating Bush were just taking part in right thinking political dissent? Why is it that every conspiracy theory about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/9-11/etc is worthy of consideration and discussion but any talk of why there was an apparent bullet hole in the back of Ron Browns head ( I saw the post pics, it COULD have been a bullet hole) when he so conveniently had a plane crash in the Balkans right when he was in the middle of some very hot water of his own making back home and/or why something like 27 other people with links to the Clintons wound up dead is just conspiracy kook crazy talk?
Now before you go nuts on me for even mentioning any of that, stop and think for a minute- Anything I mentioned comes under the heading of "odd coincidences that people wonder about/might be some sort of illegal stuff". That goes for both sides of the argument. I don't think Bush was any lily white saint and neither were the Clintons. My point is that, in my view, there's NO DIFFERENCE between the two arguments except that the double standard makes Bush (or any right winger) the bad guy while the Clintons (or Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Ted Kennedy/etc) is a lefty, therefore pure as the driven snow. So they get different treatment by the press. WHY IS THAT RIGHT!???
Frank, you're not a dumb guy. But how you can look at the big picture and miss that double standard mystifies me. It's two sides of the same coin, yet one side is "evil" and the other "good". It's just like saying Fox is biased and alllllll the other newsies aren't. Olbermann is just as much a sensationalist as Limbaugh, just from a different point of view.
I'm not saying you have to agree with my point of view, I'm saying we all owe it to ourselves to step back and look at the big picture because if you don't you only get what they want you to get and that's all the information you'll have to form an opinion with. I was a raving liberal in the late 70's, Jerry Brown was the man. I got my eyes opened over the next 10 years. Now I'm a hard right fiscal/middle right social conservative/libertarian. I may not always be correct in my views, but I try to be honest enough with myself to realize that. That;s all I'm asking for, look at the big picture. If you still feel that progressiveness is the way to go, then fine, blaze away. Just don't point at the naked king and laugh if you forgot to put pants on yourself.
Whatever.
Radical American lefties had nothing do to with producing or promoting the TV docudrama, "Assasination of A President."
Here is an excerpt from the London Evening Standard of 01/09/06, regarding this TV docudrama that played in Great Britain:
"Held up by a secret service bodyguard in his dying moments after being shot in the stomach, this is President Bush being assassinated.
Surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers, the American leader is pictured just seconds after being gunned down by a sniper following an anti-war demonstration.
But rather than a repeat of JFK's shooting or Ronald Reagan's attempted assassination, this shocking image is part of a new Channel Four show.
The dramatic scene, which has caused outrage among Americans, has been created by a British film company for a programme about the effect of the War On Terror.
In Death Of A President, which will premiere at the Toronto Film Festival later this month (SEPT)before being shown on Channel 4's satellite channel More4 in October, the assassination is a starting point for a retrospective fictional documentary about what happened next.
This scene, which was created by putting the President's face onto an actor with digital wizardry, shows him being gunned down just hours after driving past an ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATION while doing a talk in Chicago.
The two hour drama, in which events are 're-created' by the use of footage and interviews, shows the media storm around the War on Terror as Muslims are fingered as the culprits before there is any evidence.
In the wake of the assassination, authorities focus on a Syrian-born man in the search for the culprit."
*****
If anything, Bret, to portray Bush being shot during an anti-war rally would cast aspersions on the left would it not?
I have addressed your examples of racism that upon examination are not racist.
We have reviewed your false claim about movie(s) being produced encouraging the assassination of Bush.
Believe whatever the hell you want.
Keep pojecting your own, suspicions, feelings and thoughts upon others.
Bush and Cheney are war criminals among other things not honorable.
Oh, yes, of course, Bret, all Presidents have been war criminals and all political parties are crooked.
Your Rep/Con party is "going to hell in a handbasket."
Whatever.
"I was a raving liberal in the late 70's, Jerry Brown was the man."
This explains a lot.
If you keep your eye's closed long enough, you'll walk into a wall.
Or off a cliff.
Wily E. Coyote style.
"Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
OPEN YOUR EYES
Look up to the skies and see
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy
Because I'm easy come, easy go
A little high, little low
Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me" Queen
Post a Comment
<< Home