According to this primary election analysis in the conservative Washington Times:
The bottom line on Tuesday's primaries: The Republican Party is facing a purge, and limited-government conservatives are in the ascendance.
After years of taking a back seat as neoconservatives-big-government interventionists-and religious conservatives conducted a tug of war for the GOP's heart, traditional conservatives and fiscally cautious "tea party" activists are shaking up the Republican establishment and also helping shape Democratic contests.
"A center-right coalition, which is not dominated by the religious right or neocons, seems to be emerging as a powerful force in American politics," Republican National Committee member Saul Anuzis of Michigan said. "It doesn't mean their issues aren't important, but they are not necessarily the driving issues as our economy, jobs and ever-growing debt and deficit scare taxpayers."
This gels with what Jonathan Rauch wrote on this blog a few days ago, in 'Tea' Is for Tolerance. But will the hyper-partisan LGBT movement, which often seems to favor all things dependent on bigger government and higher taxes (i.e., the "progressive" agenda) pay heed?
42 Comments for “A Changing Political Paradigm”
posted by Bobby on
If you watch Glenn Beck, you’ll understand why. Everyone but progressives are sick of massive government spending, did you know that our census cost $10 billion more than in 1990 (it cost $4 billion back then). Of course, the progressives aren’t done yet, Van Jones admit they control the country from the top down, now they must control it from the bottom up. Look at that union thug Andy Stern, he threatens the rich by saying “we know where you live.” Why do you think Bill Clinton endorsed a democrat in Arkansas that was not backed by the unions? There’s a struggle in the democratic party between the crazy progressives and everyone else. People like Bill Clinton, Biden, Pelosi and others want political power, they do not want communism, yet they have used revolutionaries like Van Jones, Bill Ayres and many others. By the way, an FBI agent testified that if The Weather Underground had won, Bill and his cohorts would have to kill 25 million people, you know, the ones that can’t be “re-educated.” Give a progressive or anarchist an opportunity and he becomes a murderer, but beyond that, most Americans do not want the “fundamental transformation of America” that Obama promises. So hopefully by November, the pro-Washington movement will take over the government, vote to repeal Obamacare, reign down the spending, and fix the country if not prevent future damage.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
It seems that many have a distorted view of what the “Tea Party” is.
Check out this past comment from a reader at The New Yorker.
I admit that I initially thought they were a strident group much like fundamentalist conservatives; however, that was simply because I had not observed closely and merely went by reports from the media and other agenda-driven kibitzers.
The “Tea Party” doesn’t consist of backward fundamentalists at all……which is perhaps what scares ultra-Liberal detractors who wish to sustain government control of every facet of an individual’s life.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks for the link. Here’s a video of a pro-Obama thug attacking peaceful tea partiers, it happened recently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFYatbFqDa4
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
That’s really disgusting.
You can’t win by arguing with people like that.
Especially in such an incendiary environment.
posted by BobN on
I know the Washington Times is for sale, but that’s no excuse for them to slack off so much! That “analysis” is pretty skimpy.
Besides which, if you’re trying to convince us that the surge of new blood in the GOP is good for us, you might pick an article that doesn’t highlight two winners who are, in fact, more opposed to our rights than their defeated opponents are…
posted by Carl on
“But will the hyper-partisan LGBT movement, which often seems to favor all things dependent on bigger government and higher taxes (i.e., the “progressive” agenda) pay heed?”
Pay heed to what exactly? How are the stars of the Tea Party on gay rights issues? Scott Brown, who was hailed as a Tea Party star, won’t even support a repeal of DADT.
This seems to be another variation of what gays often heard during the last President Bush’s years in the White House, even though Bush and the Tea Party seem to have little in common. Yet, it’s the same thing — if gays are nice enough and stop being so liberal and stop expecting so much, then Republicans will be more welcoming to them.
Republicans and Tea Party groups don’t need gay supporters. They have a very successful band of socially conservative supporters who are not going to trade those principles just because they care about low taxes. They have a good thing going and in many ways, that would probably actually be spoiled if they ever had any prominent gay or lesbian figures in their movement.
posted by Jorge on
I do not think that is what Jonathan Rauch wrote at all. Might have meant to, but it didn’t come out right.
I am highly offended that the Times published such an analysis barely 20 minutes after I wrote much the same thing on this site.
So there’s a difference between “traditional conservatives” and “religious conservatives”, eh? I know that, but it’s the first time I’ve heard it said.
I know the Washington Times is for sale, but that’s no excuse for them to slack off so much! That “analysis” is pretty skimpy.
Well, okay, I’ll admit I wasn’t thinking about the Tuesday primaries at all, but would you care to share why?
Besides which, if you’re trying to convince us that the surge of new blood in the GOP is good for us, you might pick an article that doesn’t highlight two winners who are, in fact, more opposed to our rights than their defeated opponents are…
I didn’t pay much attention to the races, but I share the same doubts about any movement exemplified by Sarah Palin. Maybe if the 43rd president had been James Dobson and Palin’s running mate had been Pat Robertson I’d welcome Palin more, but they weren’t.
posted by Tom on
Exactly.
In Wisconsin, while the “Changing Political Paradigm” might back off Republicans from making repeal of our limited-rights Domestic Partner law — passed in 2009 without a single Republican vote in either the Senate or the Assembly — an article of faith in the September Republican primary, and makes JB Van Hollen (Wisconsin’s Republican Attorney General, who denounced the law as unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a court challenge from Wisconsin Family Action) look foolish, the best that can be said for the “new paradigm” is that Republican politicians in Wisconsin are now no longer using gays and lesbians as political fodder, loudly banging the drum of homophobia.
The 2010 Republican platform reflects the “changing paradigm”, too. For the first time in a decade, the platform does not contain any explicit statements opposing equal legal rights for gays and lesbians.
That’s all positive, in my view. It looks like gays and lesbians won’t be a Republican target this year, as we have been since 2000. And maybe the worst of it is over, as Stephen suggests in his many posts, and the Republican Party’s use of gays and lesbians as targets is over in Wisconsin.
The Republican Party in Wisconsin seems to have gone “gay-silent”, at least at the official level, in 2010. But I think that it is also fair to note that we have yet to see anything out of the GOP in Wisconsin that could fairly be called “gay-supportive”.
I think that it is also fair to note that the “gay-silence” of the “new paradigm” really hasn’t changed things on the ground.
Both Republican candidates for Governor oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions, as do both Republican candidates for US Senator, all Republican candidates for Lieutenant Governor, and, of course, JB Van Hollen, the Republican candidate for Attorney General.
On the Democratic side, the leading Democratic candidate for Governor, although as-yet silent on same-sex marriage, has a strong gay-rights record as Mayor of Milwaukee, Henry Sanders, the leading Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor, unequivocally supports same-sex marriage, as does Russ Feingold, the Democratic candidate for the US Senate, and so on.
Additionally, in marked contrast to the “gay-silent” Republican platform, the Democratic platform, passed this weekend, says “We support equal legal rights for all individuals in committed, loving relationships.” and the party’s resolutions include Resolution 10-JHD-01 (note the number, “01”, which puts it at the top of the twenty-nine “Resolutions Concerning Justice, Human Concerns and Democracy” this year), which reads:
It isn’t just talk on the Democratic side, either.
In 2009, the Democrats passed the state’s Domestic Partner law (limited, but pushing the limits of the state’s 2006 “nuclear option” anti-marriage amendment, an amendment pushed by Republicans that year and opposed by Democrats).
In 2010, the Democrats passed, over Republican opposition, passed a “Healthy Youth Act” that brings sex education into our schools, and anti-bullying “School Safety” law, providing state assistance to schools in setting up anti-bullying programs, without mandates, both of which include language addressing the needs of gay and lesbian kids with respect to decent sex education and school bullying.
I welcome any and all signs that the Republican Party in Wisconsin is shedding its homophobic past. I think that “gay-silent” is a forward step.
But I’m skeptical. I am not convinced that the new “gay-silent” Republican Party in Wisconsin is going to lift a finger in support of gays and lesbians if they get control of the legislature or the executive branch in this state.
The Democrats in Wisconsin are generally fiscally responsible, and are taking a lot of heat from the so-called “small government” crowd about the realities of the budget cuts the Democrats made in the 2009-2010 budget, cuts that reduced the cost of state government and reduced funding to county and local government. I don’t agree with the Democrats on a lot of issues — concealed carry, for example, which the legislature passed and outgoing Governor Doyle vetoed.
But I’ll be damned if I’m going to go into a swoon over the “new paradigm” quite yet. I don’t believe the “New and Improved” bullshit in soap advertisements, and I don’t buy into the idea that “gay-silent” equals “gay-supportive”.
Looking at the choices in front of me this year, I’m going to vote for Democrats for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General and the State Assembly. Our Republican State Senator is moderate Republican who never banged the homophobic drum and has done good work on school funding over the years, and I’ll vote for him. I’m going to vote for Russ Feingold for the US Senate.
The Democrats in Wisconsin have a proven gay-supportive record. The Republicans have the opposite. I’m too damn old, and have been battling the Religious Right in this state too long, to think that the Republicans have had a change of heart, just yet.
If the Republicans move from “gay-silent” in 2010 to “gay-supportive” in 2012, I’ll be glad and I’ll take a fresh look. I’m not holding my breath.
posted by Jimmy on
“You can’t win by arguing with people like that.”
Especially when they are racists. Granted, that situation got out of hand; but, why is it no one points out that what probably triggered that escalation was the racism clearly represented by the mouthy broad who, while standing on the same sidewalk in the middle of the day, asked a black man if he had a job, after the black man had the temerity to publicly challenge the garbage being spread on said public sidewalk.
Obviously an aberration since we all know tea partiers aren’t inherently racist.
posted by Jorge on
Especially when they are racists.
You know, that really pisses me off. What kind of idiots do you take us for? Racism had nothing to do with the incident. There were no racial statements or epithets made, the man’s behavior was arrogant and confrontational, and his presentation was low-class. Make him white trash and you would have gotten the same thing. And you say it was clear racism? Why? Because a woman said why he’s not at work and why he doesn’t have a job? The situation was already escalating. Or is it because the man had pitch black skin and he threw a punch and people are talking about it? That’s what’s really going on here. I think it’s you who’s being racist by reflexively drawing attention away from the stereotype of black men as being violent.
What this really amounts to is that you are making excuses for his behavior because he happens to be a dark-skinned black man and they’re already put down enough as it is. By letting him skate, you are in effect trying to make it so that men with pitch black skin do not have to be held responsible for their actions. And in so doing, you are enabling and encouraging violence, and to that extent you are the one being racist. The man should have either been arrested or had the crap beaten out of him. He decided to get physical, so he should suffer the consequences of his actions. To demand anything else is, yes, racist.
posted by Jimmy on
Jorge, I said that that situation got out of hand, but when there’s shitty behavior all around, everybody needs to own their shitty behavior.
posted by Jorge on
Well, I can’t accept that.
posted by Debrah on
“What this really amounts to is that you are making excuses for his behavior because he happens to be a dark-skinned black man and they’re already put down enough as it is. By letting him skate, you are in effect trying to make it so that men with pitch black skin do not have to be held responsible for their actions.”
**************************************************
This is clearly one of the best analyses I’ve read regarding this type of situation which will invariably be distorted by the tendentious media hounds.
posted by BobN on
Well, okay, I’ll admit I wasn’t thinking about the Tuesday primaries at all, but would you care to share why?
1) It was very short
2) It only mentioned three races
3) At least the last example, Fiorina, by the analysis itself, contradicts the analysis.
posted by BobN on
Paradigm-wise, it does dawn on folks that in most states, there’s no more to fight over for gay rights. The constitutional amendments have been passed and our unions and marriages are now impossible. No point in trying to rally the base about something the base has already won.
The next step for culture warrior candidates, of course, would be to fight DADT and ENDA on the national scene. Problem is, the majority of constituents, even in conservative states, aren’t quite so one-sided in their positions. In some cases, they actually support us (though by slim majorities), even within the GOP in conservative states.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, let’s look at how you “own” the shitty behavior.
So if a black man loses his temper and slugs someone, it’s not his fault because the evil racist white woman made him do it.
You don’t own ANY of the behavior, Jimmy. You blame the white woman. You hold the white woman solely responsible. You insist that the black man’s action was totally justified. You insist that because the white woman dared to contradict the black man and say something that you disagree publicly that the black man was completely and totally justified in his actions.
This, given your Obama Party beliefs, is no surprise. Obama Party members like yourself enforce laws based solely on the skin color of those involved.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So how is a $2.3 billion dollar deficit “responsible”?
Which makes your complete obedience to them on the basis of your sexual orientation that much more hilarious.
And, since it demonstrates the fact that you don’t care about anything else as long as your minority status is pandered to, there really is no reason for Republicans to bother.
You want decisions to be made based on minority status and skin color, Tom. Republicans believe in character and performance. You are incompatible with that belief system, and are much better in the Obama Party, where they can be profligate, business-hating idiots, but you don’t care, because they pander to you.
posted by Jimmy on
I hold responsible anyone who escalated an already heated situation with blatantly racists remarks. Does she have a job? Does her husband have a job? Maybe no one on that sidewalk had a job. They have plenty of company thanks to the Carly Fiorinas and Mitt Romneys and George W. Bushes of the world.
I didn’t say he was justified in his behavior; I said his behavior is understandable. If a crime was committed, I assume the authorities handled it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And what does Jimmy insist is a “blatantly racists (sic) remark”?
But wait. How is it that Jimmy shrieks those questions are “racist remarks” and that anyone who asks those questions is making “racist statements”….but then makes those “racist remarks” and “racist statements” towards white people himself?
Answer: Because Jimmy is once again blaming the evil white woman for everything and trying to rationalize and make excuses for the black man.
This is where the true and vicious racism of liberals like Jimmy becomes blatantly obvious.
Notice how the white people in this situation are supposed to keep their mouths shut, go away, and not antagonize the black man — and especially not to hit the black man.
But according to Jimmy, the black man’s behavior is perfectly understandable and acceptable. White people should know better than to argue with or disagree with black people. If white people ask black people questions, that is making “racist statements”. If white people are attacked by black people, it is always the white peoples’ fault.
Do you believe that black people are incapable of making intelligent arguments without resorting to violence, Jimmy? Do you believe that black people are so emotionally fragile that they shouldn’t be asked questions? Do you believe that black people cannot be held accountable for their violent behavior because it is always the fault of white people?
You are a racist and a bigot. And you’re just making that fact more obvious with the more spinning that you do.
posted by Jimmy on
“Notice how the white people in this situation are supposed to keep their mouths shut, go away, and not antagonize the black man — and especially not to hit the black man.”
No, everyone is supposed to act like adults. At the beginning, everyone was within their rights. When the black man was through arguing with this mob, he tried to leave the side walk. He was surrounded. The mouthy white lady, on the same sidewalk in the middle of the day, ask him if he even had a job, because, as we all know, black men don’t work. Guess what happens next. Was anyone arrested here?
“But according to Jimmy, the black man’s behavior is perfectly understandable and acceptable.”
No one’s behavior is “acceptable” in this instance
Take the sheet off your face, ND30, it’s a brand new day. Respect yourself.
Did Bull Connor ever show up with the high powered water hoses and German shepherds?
posted by Debrah on
“Did Bull Connor ever show up with the high powered water hoses and German shepherds?”
***********************************
Please, Jimmy.
You’re too smart for these stupid and knee-jerk effulgences.
Liberals have used those old tools for so long that they’ve become embarrassingly incorporated into their very DNA…….
…….and all intelligent thought processes are eclipsed by this disease.
The black community, especially its “activists”, has made a very lucrative cottage industry off those gross double standards.
posted by Jimmy on
“You’re too smart for these stupid and knee-jerk effulgences.”
Maybe, but I’ll risk it.
posted by Jimmy on
Should I have just stopped with the Staple Singers reference, Deb?
posted by Jorge on
Jimmy, if your argument made any sense, it would stand without you having to use the race card to support it.
Having argued the issue without referring to race in your last post, the only thing that stands on its own is a group of people surrounding a man telling him to get a job. This is not grievable. I can’t even concede this because you grossly misrepresent the content of the video. The video does not show the man leaving. One minute the video shows a peaceful if tense confrontation about that clown Bush and “BP!!!” and this muffen-headed woman turning her backside on the man, the next minute the video cuts to the man clearly telling the cameraperson to “put ’em up.” Not even a minute: this happens between 1:20 and 1:26 in the video. The woman tells the man should he be at work and shouldn’t he have a job at 1:30.
I won’t insult you twice, but I openly question what motivation is interfering with your judgment here.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm. Let me amend that. Say without reference to any racist accusations.
posted by Jimmy on
To ask the man why he isn’t at work, even though no one on the sidewalk is at work (unless they were paid to be there) is on it’s face, chalk full of racist sentiment. If you don’t get that, I don’t know what to tell you, Jorge.
It says, in effect, we belong here, and you don’t.
posted by Jorge on
No, Jimmy, I’ve already told you, you can repeat the same scene with white trash. I know a lot of stereotypes, and frankly I think you’re making this one up. If you’re not, back it up. It’s certainly obscure enough that I’m within my rights to ask that if you have any ivory tower liberal friends you get them to help you find some documentation of this breed of racial stereotyping. You must understand, I haven’t spoken that language in years, so my dialect is a little out of date.
posted by Jimmy on
I’ll say it again, I don’t know what to tell you. You either see it, or you don’t.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, we don’t all know that.
That is your own personal racist belief, Jimmy, born of your own hatred and contempt for black people and encouraged by your own Obama Party’s racist belief that black people are inferior and cannot be held to the same standards of behavior or intelligence as white people.
This is why your Harry Reid, your Obama Party’s leader, was so impressed that Obama was not your typical “Negro” and didn’t speak with a “dialect”. This is why your Joe Biden was so blown away that Obama was “clean” and “articulate” — because in the racist world of the Obama Party, black people are neither. You insist that “everyone knows” that black people don’t have jobs because you think black people are inferior and lazy.
Wrong, Jimmy. To you, the black man’s behavior is clearly acceptable. You are clearly stating that the “mouthy white lady” made him do it. You absolve him completely of blame for his actions.
Nowhere in any of your rants do you hold the black man accountable. You smear the other people, automatically calling them “racists”, saying that everything they say is “garbage”, calling them a “mob”, calling the woman a “mouthy broad”, and in general hurling insult after insult after insult against the white people.
The funny part is that Jimmy has established that merely asking someone if they have a job is grounds for punching that person. Since Jimmy has insulted this group of people, they have plenty of grounds to start punching him.
But what would Jimmy do? Scream and cry and call it a “hate crime” and insist that no one has the right to punch him for namecalling.
That’s what makes Jimmy’s hypocrisy, racism, and bigotry even more obvious.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, that would be because the situations are vastly different.
You, Jimmy, are desperately trying to rationalize why you supported a black man punching a white man, so you’re screaming “racism”, just like Obama Party members always do. Instead of simply coming out and saying that you supported this because you wanted to see that “mouthy broad” get punched for daring to disagree with your Barack Obama, you try to insist that the black man’s actions were justified because all the white people there were “racists”.
And you know what, Jimmy? Your Klan references are very typical. That’s what your Barack Obama Party and its liberal allies shrieked during the Tawana Brawley case, during the Duke lacrosse case, and during the Kwame Kilpatrick case — that black peoples’ behavior was always justified, that whites were always evil, and that anyone who disagreed with you was a Klansman who was going to sicc the dogs and the water hoses on them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Hey everyone — want to see Jimmy’s latest anti-racism crusade?
Let me guess Jimmy’s spin to protect his precious Obama Party once again: even if the card says “holes”, it’s whitey’s fault for putting it out there in the first place because racist black people might get confused.
Oh, and don’t forget: according to Jimmy, if you hear “holes” instead of what the black people told you to hear, you’re a racist, sheet-wearing Klan member who’s just waiting for Bull Connor to show up with the high powered water hoses and German shepherds.
posted by Debrah on
ND30–
The Hallmark card fiasco that you reference is unworldly.
Any adult human who would sign onto such a “grievance” is ready for the mental institution.
I received that scoop in an e-mail from Media-ite and initially thought it was a joke.
But it’s not!
posted by Jimmy on
Spin it all you like, ND30, but there is no way in hell I would ask a black man, standing on the same public ground as I, and at the same time of day, heated dispute or not, in the state of North Carolina or anywhere else, why he’s not at work.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why not? As we see above, you have no trouble asking it of a white man or white woman.
Are you afraid of the black man and how you think they’ll punch you if they get in the least offended, where you wouldn’t expect a white person to do the same?
Racist.
posted by Jimmy on
I wonder, would the white lady have asked the question if the man she was arguing with was white? Of course, we’ll never know. She is the one who asked the question, however. And I’m a racist because I wonder whether she, or her husband for that matter, have a job to be at in the middle of the day.
Maybe it was a Sunday, and folks came by after church.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, yes, because you previously stated that wondering or saying that was a racist thought and making a racist statement. Remember?
You yourself stated that wondering or asking someone if they have a job was a “blatantly racist remark”. Now you’re seemingly upset that you’re having applied to you the rules that you insist on applying to others.
What happens to you if you condemn a black person’s behavior and hold them responsible, Jimmy? Does that make you a racist and strip you of your Obama Party membership and minority status?
posted by Jimmy on
If there was a crime committed, then the authorities handled it, I’m sure. Shouldn’t be a problem to arrest a black man in North Carolina.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, it is a problem, especially since the North Carolina Obama Party has an apparent addiction to protecting black criminals and trying to prosecute and punish innocent white people.
Why?
Because the Obama Party knew that by punishing white people and protecting black criminals, they would win the vote of racist black people and racist liberals like Jimmy.
posted by Jorge on
I wonder, would the white lady have asked the question if the man she was arguing with was white? Of course, we’ll never know. She is the one who asked the question, however. And I’m a racist because I wonder whether she, or her husband for that matter, have a job to be at in the middle of the day.
I am not interested in your personal wonderings and musings. Well, okay, I am, but they’re not convincing enough.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think where something is motivated by racism or even subconscious racial stereotyping, it should be pointed out because that’s going to be painful and humiliating, and we have a responsibility to be better people than that.
Where, however, something is not motivated by race, and the race card is played, it has among the ugliest, dirtiest, most detrimental effects on our society and culture as anything you can throw at people. To label a person a racist is to destroy that person, and it’s something that should not be done without being dead certain of it. Too much public discourse is destroyed because of reckless witch hunts and the fear they cause. The effect here is to say that if you are the wrong opinion and you go afowl of one insignificant person’s questionable judgment based on no other evidence, your reputation is destroyed.
It kinda reminds me of To Kill a Mockingbird where the black guy gets convicted of rape even though Atticus proved the girl was really beat up for having a consensual relationship with the man. And that was the PG version.
posted by Brian Miller on
I wouldn’t waste much time addressing “ND30’s” shots. It’s easy to impugn others from deep in the closet — if “ND30” even exists at all apart from a rather crude astroturfing campaign.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The funny part is watching people like Brian Miller, who managed to destroy the reputation of gays and lesbians within the Libertarian Party due to his inability to stop making crude insults at party meetings about anyone who disagreed with him, argue that he’s somehow better because he’s “out” by his own definition.
Being “out” seems to substitute for intelligence and competence among gays and lesbians. It’s typical that Brian Miller wants others to judge whether or not people are right, not by their facts, but by whether or not they meet acceptable minority behavior standards as established by him.
Funny how a so-called “libertarian” is so dependent upon a fixed set of behavior and standards to determine right or wrong. That’s probably why Brian Miller has gravitated to the Obama Party — it supports and endorses his belief that his minority status somehow makes him superior.
posted by Veteran on
The constitution says there has to be a separation between gov’t and religion. So there is not discrimination and every1 has equal rights. Well is it not the religious ones that are against homosexuality the most? Is the gov’t not disobeying the constitution by catering to religion? The constitution and bill of rights are there so that no one is discriminated against. So the gov’t needs to look at that and not the people against it and give into them. Equal rights mean equal, regardless of race,religion,age,sex, or sexual preferences! Maybe we should fine the gov’t and put them in jail for discrimination!!
See if you can help an OIF veteran, click on my name to find out more.