Recently in Republicans Category

A while back - sometime between today and my previous post over a month ago - I came across a "conservative" blog discussing this view of the Democratic party and "the Left"

Leftism, which sees people as victim groups rather than individuals, which sets us one against another according to the color of our skins rather than distinguishing us by the contents of our characters, which is so eager to manipulate our guilts and grievances in order to form bases of support for an ever-expanding state, has derailed the natural American movement—the natural human movement—toward assimilation and unity and replaced it with ghettoizing multi-culturalism and infantilizing “diversity.”

Emphasis in original.  I preface my comments by saying that I do not like the "labels game" of calling people "liberal" or "conservative" or "left" or "right."  It really doesn't mean anything if you don't have tangible reference point.  For  example, if Pat Buchanan calls me a liberal, that doesn't really say much.  But if Ted Kennedy did, well, that's a different story.  So, when I refer to this blogger as "conservative" I'm using my political views as reference and it should be taken to mean "more conservative than me."  In fact, this blogger considers herself to be  "moderately conservative" or what would be referred to in the world out there as center-right.

With that caveat, I really have to laugh at this news item:

They’ve had it up to here.

Republican National Committee Michael Steele, who’s often tangled with members of his own party, is now facing boos from yet another crowd. This time, it’s Hispanic GOP leaders, who are peeved that he hasn’t appointed any high-profile Hispanics to top positions.

Emphasis in original.  If he wasn't so annoying, I'd feel bad for Michael Steele.  That said, it's interesting that the tokenism from "the right" sounds just like tokenism from "the left."

In a Mar. 6 letter acquired by a news site Wednesday, Hispanic leaders said they “were extremely disheartened that no Hispanics were considered for the post of Coalitions Director and that, to date, no Hispanics have been appointed to any other high-profile leadership roles within the party.”

“If the RNC’s outreach effort to Hispanics consists simply of appointing a Hispanic to serve as Director of the Hispanic Coalitions, then this plan is a recipe for disaster,” said the letter, co-signed by seven Hispanic group leaders (which according to Politico’s Ben Smith included the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, the Hispanic War Veterans of America, and the National Coalition for Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders).

Not to be outdone, the HRs (Hispanic Republicans) also played the race card.

The letter was circulated after Steele hired a black Republican to lead the GOP’s diversity efforts.

But that was back in March 6.  What happened since?

Steele responded to the March 6 letter by inviting prominent Hispanic Republicans, including the letter's signatories, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former Texas Congressman Henry Bonilla, to a March 18 meeting at the RNC's headquarters.

There, people present said, Steele reiterated the commitment to broaden the party that had won him broad support from Hispanic Republicans in the chairman's race, and asked them to send him resumes of capable Hispanic operatives and advisors.

His guests left satisfied, but say that since then, they've seen no action.

And just to show this isn't a Republican problem, the HDs (Hispanic Democrats) are upset too.

On the Democratic side of the aisle, Hispanic leaders are stewing too. Leading lawmakers are criticizing Obama for what they consider to be his “slow-walking comprehensive immigration reform.”

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) lauded Obama in Roll Call Thursday as being “clear and strong on the issue,” but she said her caucus would push for immigration reform this year.

I must say comprehensive immigration reform won't be much of an issue if we don't (a) turn the economy around and get it going in the right direction - which may be happening but who knows? - (b) create jobs; the faster, the better, and (c) keep people from falling into a black hole of economic despair.  After all, there won't be that much immigration into a country that doesn't have many or any jobs to offer.

So, there it is.  The HRs are just as bad at tokenism as the HDs.

Leftism, which sees people as victim groups rather than individuals, which sets us one against another according to the color of our skins rather than distinguishing us by the contents of our characters

So that would make Hispanic Republicans . . . leftists?  Riiiiiiiight!!!!! (No pun intended there.)

There was too much to write for this on Twitter. 

Ruben Navarrette recently 'predicted' that Latinos will get the shaft when it comes to the High Court.  Of course, he's talking about Sotomayor here, who's been a target and the source of much hoopla for weeks now.

To sum up Navarrette quickly, he credits the whole candidate list to tokenism:

The unqualified come in all colors, races, ethnicities and backgrounds, as do the qualified.

By the way, some pundits are saying the odds are good that a Latino will get the nod. I hope I'm wrong, but I predict Latinos will be shut out again. Then the administration will expect to get credit for at least including a couple of token Latino names on the short list. After all, I suspect, that was the whole point of including them.

Isn't he adding fuel to the fire that Latinos and women are not the "most qualified?"  What happens when a woman or a Latino is appointed to the high court?  Are we going to hear that the sole reason that they are there is because of their ethnicity or because they have titts???  Unfortunately, the GOP machine does not cease it's subersive messages even in the small hours of their irrelavant party.

While American punditry goes through yet another round of hand-wringing about Obama overreaching, not succeeding, etc., the U.S. public has a clear idea of who's on their side - and who isn't.

A new national poll suggests that three out of four Americans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, but the economic stimulus package he's trying to push through Congress is not nearly as popular.

Seventy-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Monday gave Obama a thumbs-up on how he's performing his duties, while 23 percent disapproved.

While the president puts on a full-court press, the debate over the $800 billion-plus bill -- which includes increased government spending and tax cuts -- appears to have split the public. A slight majority, 54 percent, favors the bill; 45 percent are opposed.

And there's a partisan divide. Three out of four Democrats support the bill, but that number drops to 51 percent for Independents and just 32 percent for Republicans. Nearly seven in 10 Republicans questioned in the survey oppose the bill.

Lets see, a majority of Democrats and Independents support Obama and the stimulus package and a majority of Republicans oppose both.  Republicans didn't get it on November 4 and they still don't.  But wait, there's more.

The survey indicates, however, that Obama and the Democrats in Congress do have some advantages in this political battle over the stimulus. Three out of four poll respondents said that Obama is doing enough to cooperate with Republicans in Congress, but only 39 percent feel that congressional Republicans are cooperating enough with the president.

Six out of 10 approved of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling their jobs. But only 44 percent of those questioned approved of the way Republican leaders in Congress are performing. Overall, only 29 percent said they like the way Congress is handling its job, with 71 percent disapproving.

That's far below Obama's 76 percent approval rating, which is higher than other recent national surveys by other organizations.

Emphasis added.  Those congressional numbers are interesting in that both Democrats and Republicans disapprove of Congress.  But if 60% of Democrats approves of the way their leaders in Congress are handling their job, it probably means that a good chunk of those Democrats believes Congress isn't doing its job because Republicans are messing things up.

The Gallup Poll pretty much has the same results.

So, if the Republicans don't want to become even more irrelevant, they better start listening to what the people have to say.

But obviously, the Republicans think otherwise:

While millions descend on Washington for the historic Inauguration of Barack Obama on Jan. 20, some Republicans see it as an occasion to get out of town.

“What better way to mark the Obama Inauguration (and his millions of adoring fans that will be in D.C.) than to get out of town to fabulous Las Vegas!” Charlie Spies, a Republican lawyer and former CFO to Mitt Romney’s campaign wrote in a blast e-mail to GOP friends. “We hope you can join us for dinner and a fun evening on Monday, Jan. 19, to celebrate the last few hours of our Republican president in the White House.”

Spies and his wife Lisa, a Republican fundraiser, have gotten about 15 takers so far for this last supper or, as they billed it in the e-mail, their own “Inaugural in Exile.”

They’re far from alone. Others will usher in the new era from the slopes, the islands, the NFL playoffs and even on a serendipitously timed honeymoon. Full Democratic control of Washington may be a bitter pill, but it’s easier to get down from a lodge, beach, 50-yard-line or, especially, honeymoon suite.

Emphasis added.  I wonder if the Republicans will be paying for, say, a few regular Joes - or even for a few "Joes the Plumbers" - on that trip.  Somehow, now I understand why this country is as f***ed up as it is: the economy is in shambles, unemployment is rising, the financial sector and the automobile sector - the one significant manufacturing sector left in the U.S. - are nearly done for, and the people who've run this country for the last eight years - or, perhaps, ran it to the ground - decide to go "into exile" to Vegas, lodges, and all sort of - clearly - middle class retreats, instead of trying to figure out how to make themselves useful.

That's O.K.  I'm pretty sure the "common folk" can relate to the idea of running away from it all and sticking your head in the sand.

Now, if they could only remain in permanent exile . . .