GOP considers staunching bleeding by applying tourniquet to neck

GOP: Hey! We're getting really unpopular these days! What's the problem?

RNC: NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH BLAAARGH!

GOP: Really?

RNC: YES, YOU MUST IMPLEMENT MY THING!

GOP: Oh, ok.

[a number of years later]

GOP: (falls over dead)

Okay, maybe not that extreme, but read this from the New York Times:

The battle among Republicans over what the party should stand for - and how much it should accommodate dissenting views on important issues - is probably going to move from the states to the Republican National Committee when it holds its winter meeting this January in Honolulu.

Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they "espouse conservative principles and public policies" that are in opposition to "Obama's socialist agenda." According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues- in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire - would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.

The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee members and was distributed on Monday morning. They are asking for the resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting.

Here is the resolution’s list:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Now, even putting aside the metric fuck-ton of loaded language going on there, you've still got a resolution that appeals to the absolute most extreme fringe of the electorate. Now, I'll grant you, that's pretty much how parties have tended to operate, but they've never taken the, "This is our treehouse, no-one else allowed." approach.

I mean, seriously guys, think blue dog democrats. They exist, and the DNC is not trying to force them into the other party. That would be flat stupid in many ways. Some individuals might rather they be gone, but overall, it's easier for your party to have political success when your candidates can be, well, individuals instead of clones of each other and thereby appeal to the people where they're running. THEN you beat them into submission once they're in office. This is basic stuff here, guys.

The big tent is now the little treehouse. (Picture the following in a child-like scrawl.) ALSO: NO GURLS ALOWED!

Via: Pam's House Blend:: GOP's 'Purity Resolution' for its candidates

: (

The Associated Press: New Lutheran body to form after gay pastor vote:

NEW BRIGHTON, Minn. — The split over gay clergy within the country's largest Lutheran denomination has prompted a conservative faction to begin forming a new Lutheran church body separate from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Leaders of Lutheran CORE said Wednesday that a working group would immediately begin drafting a constitution and taking other steps to form the denomination, with hopes to have it off the ground by next August.

"There are many people within the ELCA who are very unhappy with what has happened," said the Rev. Paull Spring, chairman of Lutheran CORE and a retired ELCA bishop from State College, Pa.

I am a gay man; I was born and baptized in this church; I was confirmed in this church; I have served this church in youth ministries and in the chancel as a layperson in this church; I someday hope to attend seminary and be ordained in this church; and I am saddened and hurt by this decision. I also have question:

Why?

I am trying to see this through your eyes; please try to see it through mine. When this vote was taken, when my LGBT siblings and I were affirmed by my church as full members in our shared mission, did this somehow reduce your place in our mission? I want to work with you, and I want to make sure you don't have to compromise your beliefs.

But at the same time, I couldn't allow our church to continue telling the next generation of little gay boys and girls that they aren't whole and that they can't be part of Christ's body. This has lead to too many suicides, too many broken families, too much pain for altogether too long; it could not continue.

Are we, your LGBT brothers and sisters that much of a deal breaker that you must leave? There are so many other things that we as a church have changed our minds on over the years, and we have worked through the disagreement together. Women's ordination is a fine example. We rightly welcome all manner of people in our church. Why is it that when we get down to God's LGBT children that people get so up-in-arms?

I want to be in communion with you; you are my brothers and sisters in Christ. This hurts me to see you leave. I think I can speak for most of us in saying that WE want to be in communion with you, and it hurts us to see you leave. When this action was taken, we swore to bear your burdens and you ours. Please continue in this journey with us. Please reconsider this action.

Pope Palpatine, We have a few issues…

From Slap Upside The Head:

Speaking to a reporter who clarified that gay tourists are traveling for personal visits and admiration, not political demonstrations, Bishop Kaleta had this to say:

I consider if someone is homosexual, it is a provocation and an abuse of this place. Try to go to a mosque if you are not Muslim. It is abuse of our buildings and our religion because the church interprets our religion that is not ethical. [...] If you have different ideas, go to a different location."

//Now, My thoughts.

Aww! I love you, too! But we have some issues here.

You see, I find you to be a provocation and abuse of decency and loving human behavior. Between your statement that condoms help spread AIDS (which will probably help to kill even more people) and your church's financial support of anti-gay political measures in MY country, I think it's become clear that if you are Christ's Vicar, then Christ must be a complete ASSHOLE.

Fortunately, I really don't think that's the case.


Via: Slap Upside The Head: Gay Tourists Not Welcome At Vatican: Bishop

VOLUNTEERING IS EVIL!

So says Glenn Beck. At least, that's what it sounds like. I'm never absolutely sure what he's trying to communicate, except for a general mania.

First this new pièce de résistance of the Beck collection so far:



What. The. Hell.

Ok, I get that he's trying to communicate that the Evil Librul Media™ is collaborating with Chairman MaObama™ (came up with that all by myself--I should see if I can sell it to the crazies) to get us to give over to the power of...HELPING OTHER PEOPLE!! (THUNDERCLAP!)

Sorry, but I'm not buying that aspect of it, and the rest of it just sounds like he's being down on volunteering. I mean, this is just getting rediculous. They've nuked the fridge, jumped the shark, and, just for good measure, jumped the fridge and nuked the shark at this point.

Is there anything that the President could support that these folks wouldn't jump up and down screaming about? I mean he could speak in support taking care of sick kids and---(sigh)---never mind...

It's been... a while.

You see, I've been meeting my bloggery needs mostly through twitter these days, but I wanted to say a few things at greater length.

First, I am so jealous of everyone who was able to participate in the march today. I wish I'd been able to be there.

Also, there has been a lot said in the past week about President Obama and his action--well, actually his lack thereof--on LGBT rights. Andrew Sullivan broke out his potty mouth, and Joe Solmonese got out his apologist britches (or are they slacks?).

Frankly, re: Obama; he's done jack diddly. I'm sorry, but giving a few speeches to LGBT audiences doesn't really cut it. Sure the Hate Crimes bill will be up for his signature (maybe, hopefully) soon. Sure there's stuff going on. But it seems to have mostly moved without him.

I'll grant that it's possible that these things wouldn't be moving without his presence in the White House, and I'm no insider, so I don't know what goes on in the smoke-filled back rooms. But really, by all appearances, he's coasting on this.

And here are a few more opinions, courtesy of CNN/YouTube.

Money quote from Lt. Dan Choi: "When I hear the word 'incrementalism', I think I hear the words 'shut up'."





(One last note: I know it's a bit juvenile to comment upon this, but I have to say it. Hillary Rosen's voice drives me absolutely up a wall. All nasally and irritating. Ergh!)

Those representatives of the people don't represent the people!

Want to hear some crazy?

Listen in:



So, now that they lack the "activist judges" argument for Vermont, what tack to they take? "THOSE REPRESENTATIVES ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AREN'T REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE."

They just sound crazier and crazier.

And just as a side note, the people in Vermont, according to polls, DO support same-sex marriage. So, sorry. You're just flat wrong about what the people of Vermont "really want". Not every state is a small-minded, but much larger, version of the offices of the "Liberty" [HA] Council.

And then there's the typical lines of crap about "activist judges" "changing the definition of marriage" in Iowa. These people are just impossible to take.

What the hell matters so much about denying me my rights that they spend this much time on it? Why are they so obsessed with it? Why can't they spend their lives actually doing good and helping people in a real and tangible way, instead of in their theoretical/political way?

Audio source: Audio: As our rights become 'marrier', our opposition becomes scarier - Good As You

More Good News from Iowa

The Iowa State Senate president stands up for same-sex marriage. A beautiful statement.

“‘You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost.’ … No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.”

(The first part is quoting his daughter, but...well, he still said that on the floor.)

Iowa Senate President Blocks Same-Sex Marriage Ban | Box Turtle Bulletin

Dear Vermont Legislature,

Just wanted to say


THANK YOU

Love,

Me

Same-Sex Marriage Legalized in Vermont | News | Advocate.com

Dear Governor Douglas,

Why don't you go give up your marriage and enter into one of those "perfectly sufficent" civil unions with your wife?


JACKASS

Sincerely,

Me

V-T- gets its irrational E O - Good As You:: Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor

The religious right and torture memos--What's in it for them?

I was reading an interesting article today on The Daily Beast about some recent political wrangling over Bush era torture memos. Republicans are threatening to filibuster two of Obama's legal apointments (Remember when Republicans were arguing that it was impermissible to filibuster apointments, back when their guy was in office and it was those meanies, the Democrats, who were doing the filibustering? Oh how the times do change!) if Obama releases some of the potentially incriminating memos.

Full article is here: Are Republicans Blackmailing Obama? - The Daily Beast

But besides all that other stuff (which is, sadly, just typical Washington) I saw this little nugget:

[One of the nominees up for confirmation,] Johnsen has met recently with moderate Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, both of whom are being lobbied heavily by colleagues and religious right groups to oppose her nomination. [Emphasis mine]

What stake, exactly, do religious groups have in opposing releasing torture memos? This sounds like a purely political move on the part of any religious group participating in this.

Has it finally happened? The Religious Right has not subsumed, but been subsumed by the political machine it sought to control?

Or is this a mutual back-scratching arrangement: "You pester Arlen to protect our political ass, and we will go out and get the 'homos' and 'baby-killers' for you. (Or at least pretend to.)"

UPDATE: Or, perhaps, the third option: the politico right wants these nominations to go down and they've fed the religious right some lines about her being an "abortionist" or a "homosexual activist" or somesuch in order to prompt them to oppose her.

In which case the relationship would be more Pavlov and Dog than subsumption or mutuality.