Ah, so you're Rove-o-phobic in addition to being Cheney-o-phobic? Just what, exactly, bothers you so much about Rove? I've heard him speak numerous times and he seems intelligent, very well-informed, and, of course, conservative. Is the latter the rub for you?

Re: "Obama, the Magic Negro"
-------------------------------------

Apparently I am not the only one puzzled by the antics of would-be heirs to the RNC chairmanship. Perhaps it is worth listening to your own current Party Chairman:


"The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party. I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction."

� Mike Duncan, Chairman
Republican National Committe

Sure, they know they need to re-focus. Don't be thinking that those silly Shanklin songs characterize the party, however. The plain fact is that McCain would have easily won had the economy not tanked. He was ahead in the polls up to that point.

Republican honesty:

"We failed to lead. The principles we espoused are still true and good today and that's not what people moved away from us for. They moved away from us because we behaved badly."

� Michael Steele, newly elected RNC Chairman

That's true, especially concerning earmarks and laissez-faire enforcement of regulatory laws already on the books. It'll take a long time to re-gain trust, however.

Change has come to America
------------------------------------

Hopefully earmarks will soon be history. Politicians of both parties have far too long abused this. Now, instead, there will hopefully be an honest focus on passing the budgets and legislation the USA so critically need.

This change will, thankfully, make it far more difficult for lobbyists to achieve their own ends contrary to the greater good.

Likewise with laissez-faire (read: irresponsible) attitudes to regulatory law -- and enforcement of such. Republicans and Democrats alike have missed key opportunities. Naturally, there is a balance to be struck; the integrity of the free enterprise system needs to be preserved. And it is well served by regulators demanding integrity and accountability. It is even better served by fostering such attitudes as a matter of course.

Do note: Free enterprise is not synonymous with nurturing monopolistic capitalism; the latter is largely amoral.

A few additional thoughts...
One needs to do away with allowing the over-leveraging that brought on the financial crisis. Major banks and investment houses were treating the market as a casino -- unfortunately, to a large degree with other people�s money.

When catastrophe struck, also the losses incurred from such gambling were conveniently blamed on sub-prime. In time, I believe a very different reality will be unveiled, where subprime was but one factor, and probably not even the strongest. one.

Likewise, there needs to be a whole different attitude from those CEOs and Board of Directors receiving Taxpayer Investments (bailout money). Humility, gratitude and a commitment of true service for America are called for. That is easily combined with practicing good business sense.

All very true, HP, except I think you minimize the subprime issue. It is more complicated than subprime borrowers not repaying loans, as we thoroughly explored on another thread, but it is at the heart of the present financial crisis. Had the loans in question been paid, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in, but that begs the question of why the loans were made in the first place, why borrowers entered into them, etc.

The logic of Mr Steele�
-----------------------------

Frankly I am a bit uncertain whether this belongs here on in the Jokes thread.

MICHAEL STEELE: You've got to look at what's going to create sustainable jobs. What this administration is talking about is making work. It is creating work.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's a job.

STEELE: No, it's not a job. A job is something that -- that a business owner creates. It's going to be long term. What he's creating...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So a job doesn't count if it's a government job?

(CROSSTALK)

STEELE: Hold on. No, let me -- let me -- let me finish. That is a contract. It ends at a certain point, George. You know that. These road projects that we're talking about have an end point.

As a small-business owner, I'm looking to grow my business, expand my business. I want to reach further. I want to be international. I want to be national. It's a whole different perspective on how you create a job versus how you create work. And I'm -- either way, the bottom line is...

STEPHANOPOULOS: I guess I don't really understand that distinction.

STEELE: Well, the difference -- the distinction is this. If a government -- if you've got a government contract that is a fixed period of time, it goes away. The work may go away. That's -- there's no guarantee that that -- that there's going to be more work when you're done in that job.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, but we've seen millions and millions of jobs going away in the private sector just in the last year.

STEELE: But they come -- yes, they -- and they come back, though, George. That's the point. When they go -- they've gone away before, and they come back.

Is Rush Limbaugh the real head of the Republican Party?

Limbaugh is probably one of the most articulate conservatives today, not to mention a strident critic of liberals/Democrats. He didn't really like McCain, however, nor does he favor the more moderate Republicans. To the extent that Republicans are conservatives, Limbaugh is a leading voice. To the extent that they are not, however, they offer no real alternative to the Democrats. Still, Limbaugh is not the head of the Party. You posted a link above about that.

- - -

Re. the distinction Mr. Steele was trying to make -- yes, government can create jobs, but they are paid for by taxes. So whatever income is produced from government jobs generally doesn't offset the tax money spent to fund the jobs/projects (even when considering the taxes paid back by workers and contracting companies). Jobs created in the private sector are not funded by taxpayers, but by revenues generated by the goods and services generated by the company, who, in turns (along with its workers) pays taxes to the government -- a net gain for the government. Mr. Steele fumbled the explanation, but Stephanapolus should have known this.

The articulate Mr Steele
------------------------------

The stimulus package is "just a wish list from a lot of people who have been on the sidelines for years... to get a little bling, bling."

-- Michael Steele, Chairman
GOP (Grand Obstructionist Party)

Do you plan on quoting any ridiculous, outrageous, politically over-the-top things by Howard Dean, HP?

Hmm . . . thought not!

Here's a little selection for when you want to be a little more "fair and balanced."

The Stimulus Plan -- jobs that America needs
-------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Re. the distinction Mr. Steele was trying to make -- yes, government can create jobs, but they are paid for by taxes...
Jobs created in the private sector are not funded by taxpayers... Mr. Steele fumbled the explanation, but Stephanapolus should have known this.

I think you�re fumbling the explanation as well.
Tax money pays for defense-industry jobs at Lockheed, Boeing etc.

Jobs created at Lockheed and Boeing and scores of other industrial companies are very much funded by taxpayers.

Just like those, most of the jobs generated or saved by the Stimulus Plan would be in the private sector! Not in government.

Are the jobs resulting from contracts awarded to make federal building more energy efficient, for example, any less valid than Lockheed jobs building fighter planes? Surely not!
��� And unlike fighter planes, energy-efficient building give tangible return. And they are important steps to help make America more energy-independent.

Would jobs generated in the educational sector, for instance to repair dilapidated schools (money that the states do not have), be any less real than jobs that make tanks and bullets used by our armed forces? Surely not!
��� And unlike bullets that are only used once, educated minds that are given opportunities return to the Nation what is invested in them ten-fold and hundred-fold.

Would jobs in the private sector used to build bridges and expand America�s broadband be any less valid than jobs in factories that make boots and uniforms for men and women in the armed forces? Absolutely not!
��� And GOP Senate opposition is led by a man who has never sent an email!

Staying the disastrous course?
If Mr Steele and the GOP had their way, we would continue to accelerate along the same disastrous course. Why? Well, jobs come back of course:

STEELE: But they come -- yes, they -- and they come back, though, George. That's the point. When they go -- they've gone away before, and they come back.

No reason at all for the Federal Government to try to jump start the economy. We just sit down next to Mr Steele and his colleagues and pray and wait for the jobs to come back! Like they�ve always done. Sooner or later. In this case -- very much later!!

.
I would love to comment on Mr Dean (a very capable fellow), but this is the Republican thread.

From HP: I think you�re fumbling the explanation as well.
Tax money pays for defense-industry jobs at Lockheed, Boeing etc. . . .

I don't think you understood the distinction I was making between private- and public-sector jobs. Maybe read my post again. I certainly wasn't defending defense jobs, which suffer the same problem as "make-work" jobs. Same goes for education jobs. I'm not saying there's no place in a society for government-funded jobs; defense and education are two good examples. There's even a time and place for "demand-side economics" and government stimulus packages -- if that's what they really are (which is the problem with much of the current proposal).

Real jobs, defense jobs, and make-work jobs
-------------------------------------------------------

I was trying to dovetail your words with the "intended" message of Michael Steele, which was that somehow government funded work are not "real jobs". The basic premise, which is a Conservative myth, is that nothing of value is created by government-created jobs, and that this can only be done in the private sector

I was showing how government-funded jobs do create value and are real jobs. Moreover, by and large the Stimulus translates into Private Sector jobs. So a double error for the GOP and its Chairman.

* * *

I re-read your post. You seem to be making a different point from Mr Steele altogether -- and I applaud you for it!

I very much doubt that Michael Steele or GOP senators would refer to defense jobs as anything other than "real" jobs. If you�re critical of defense jobs, which I haven�t heard until now (!), then you are surely going against the prevailing Conservative view. In fact, I do not ever recall hearing a major Republican politician attacking defense jobs on such a basis.

However, "Make-work" jobs is hardly an accurate term! What Obama is doing with the Stimulus Plan is "getting the job done" in a number of areas -- and doing so while creating something of true value. (Such as greater energy dependence, which is designed to make America more competitive! yielding benefits all around.) I showed such value for a number of key sectors.

And once again, as has been stressed repeatedly by economists: the very greater portion of the jobs created will be in the private sector. So that is not the problem with much of the current proposal. In fact a number of key economists, including Krugman, are warning that the Plan is too small. Which it seems to me Limbaugh--Rove--Steele are banking on...

What this GOP Troika and its flock wants is almost exclusively Tax Cuts, an idea that has failed time and again. I would be happy to quote you the historical evidence, but this is easily available.


Sincerely,
HeartPrayer


PS. I am more concerned that Geithner prevailed with his "bad bank" concept. I do not think this is a good idea. It makes Taxpayers pay the costs instead of shareholders, which I believe is close to immoral. (This time at an "initial" cost of $ 250�500 billion.)

In its present form it fails to place needed demands on banks. Remember: They have already received about 2.3 trillion dollars (!) without correspondingly granting credit to ailing companies.

That is just not on!

A Republican view of FDR�s New Deal
---------------------------------------------

For some bizarre reason, some Conservatives are offering a revisionist vies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the New Deal that helped lift America out of the Great Depression.

Nevertheless, the most fascinating take on this is offered by Republican Congressman Steve Austria. I would not accuse him of falsification, however -- but we must wonder how Steve ever passed American History in high school:

quote:

"When Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression... He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That's just history."

Steve Austria, Congressman
Republican, Ohio (Freshman)

Depends on what one means by "lifting America out of the Great Depression." I've read for years that Roosevelt's policies -- while bringing relief to the unemployed -- actually prolonged the Depression. This is not simply a "conservative talking point," btw.
- http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...Depression-5409.aspx

quote:

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

Unemployment in the U.S. was still 17% on the eve of WWII -- not much lower than when New Deal policies began to be implemented years earlier. The Wall Street Journal has a nice piece outlining the problems created by the New Deal.
- http://www.opinionjournal.com/...artley/?id=110004190

As I know you like wikipedia, you might check into some of the criticisms of the New Deal.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...al_economic_policies

The Articulate Conservative?
------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Limbaugh is probably one of the most articulate conservatives today...To the extent that Republicans are conservatives, Limbaugh is a leading voice.

quote:

The question is who was doing this? Who was withdrawing all this money? And the next question is why? That�s where my mind starts exploding, and this is dangerous to have these explosions going this way. Could it have been George Soros? Could it have been a consortium of countries � Russia, China, Venezuela � countries that are eager to have Barack Obama elected because they know that will make it easier for them to continue their own foreign policies in the world?

Rush Limbaugh

What's the Limbaugh quote about? It makes no sense out of any context.

Republican reality check
------------------------------

quote:

.
"I�m not gonna, look, I�m not going to soft pedal this with you. I�m not going to try to blow smoke either. The reality of it is, you are absolutely right. You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point. So, yeah, it�s going to be an uphill climb."
.

Michael Steel, Chairman
Republican National Committee

.
PS. Believe me, the Limbaugh quote made even less sense in context. I am still not able to figure out what he is trying to say by stringing English words together with such astounding result.

I understand what he's saying. He's saying (about regaining the trust of the people): "I�m not gonna, look, I�m not going to soft pedal this with you. I�m not going to try to blow smoke either. The reality of it is, you are absolutely right. You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point. So, yeah, it�s going to be an uphill climb."

But, now . . . do you plan to be following Michael Steele around for the next few years?

Watching the GOP and its chairman...
-----------------------------------------------

Michael Steel is the leader of the Republican Party -- at least officially. Therefore it is natural to watch him closely in the months and years to come. And he is saying some very fascinating things... In this case about the qualities that will make people vote (or not vote) Republican.

Which of course is the topic of this thread.

What I would really like to hear is a candid analysis from Mr Steele that clarifies in greater detail what he feels the Republican Party did to lose the trust of the American people.

When his reality check is so bleak, the Republican Party must have made some decisive mistakes. But which ones? And what steps does Mr Steele foresee as necessary to regain the trust of the people?

At present, the two other most influential people in the GOP are probably Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove. Which member of this troika is most influential is not entirely clear.

If I was a Republican, I would very worried about this constellation. I do not believe it is a healthy one -- unless of course the objective is to regain power at all costs (which of course it may well be).

-- HeartPrayer

Surprising, coming from a Republican...
------------------------------------------------

quote:

.
"This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable. But I think we've got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community, throughout the world, that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes.

"To me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. I'm very much afraid any program to salvage the banks is going to require the government... I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks."
.

Senator Lindsey Graham
Republican, South Carolina

HP, any idea who the previous head of the RNC was?

Thought not!

The head of the RNC is mainly in charge of raising money, getting out the vote, setting up the convention, etc. S/he doesn't dictate policy or directions. Same goes for Dean and the DNC. Notice the candidates fielded, many of whom had strongly disagreed with Dean on issues when he ran for Pres. in 2004.

I'm sure you noticed that Steele is a Black man. No accident, there, as Blacks have gone for Democrats over 90% in the past few presidential elections.

Can we give Steele a rest? Neither he nor Dean inspire anyone to vote Republican (thread topic) or Democrat. The candidates do that, and neither man gets to say who those will be.

- - -

As for Lindsay Graham's suggestion . . . sure! That's the other thread, however, on greedy bankers. But, sure! Let the big banks and their irresponsible practices pay a consequence. Allow them to fail. The FDIC will come in and run it, maybe sell off the viable parts. That's what happened to Indymac, Washington Mutual and a few others, so far.

The quotable sayings and watchable doings of Mr Steele
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I am very aware of the formal role of the head of the RNC. And it is traditionally a rather obscure role.

Michael Steele, however, has chosen to put himself in the limelight, in a style and manner that breaks with tradition. This, of course, seems in harmony with the symbolism of the GOP choosing a black man for the role. Therefore it is natural to pay attention to what he says and does.

Likewise Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove. In various ways they have either been put, or put themselves, at the forefront of the Republicans� current battle for attention and power. Like it or not this troika is playing a key role in staking out the direction of the Republican Party.

A key to answering the question "What makes people vote (or not vote) Republican" will be to watch them very closely.

-- HeartPrayer


PS. I agree with you entirely about the banks. I quoted Senator Lindsay Graham simply because it is highly unusual to hear a Republican politician use the word "nationalisation", and that this is something that should be considered.