Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
0 com

"The Party of Life" and the Death Penalty

When Brian Williams brought up Rick Perry’s unusually high record of executions while governor of Texas, he clearly thought he was making a critical point against the Republican presidential candidate. The crowd at Perry’s first debate as a candidate for president, however, cheered openly and with abandon when Perry’s death penalty record was mentioned.
This glorification of the death penalty by the Tea Party is, frankly, disturbing. For a political group that- in Perry’s own words- is the “party of life,” its positive attitude towards killing inmates feels strange and contradictory, not to mention incredibly detached. The US is one of the few developed nations who still executes its prisoners, and this is not something to be proud of. Our company on the list of countries that still engage in capital punishment includes Iran, North Korea, and Yemen; in Europe, for example, ninety-two percent of the UN member-states have abolished the death penalty.
There is, of course, the Constitutional argument, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, that it is not properly regulated or controlled and, therefore, can lead to incredible pain on the part of the prisoner.
Frankly, it is doubtful that the Constitutional argument would resonate with the Tea Party and Republican constituents who cheered at the debate, since they probably have little concern about the well being of a prisoner suffering what they so clearly consider to be a just punishment. Perhaps, then, these proponents of capital punishment will respond to an argument about the justness of the death penalty; after all, Perry said their support for his use of state executions is based in what he considers to be their affinity for justice.
Seven years ago in Texas, while Perry was governor, a man named Cameron Todd Willingham was sentenced to the death penalty and executed for committing an act of arson, which led to a non-accidental death of his children. In 2009, Texas ordered an investigation of new evidence and changed testimony that had been discovered and could clear him of all charges. Many scientists and investigators who reviewed the case found that the evidence against Willingham was not sufficient; however, Perry removed the chair of the investigation at the last minute and placed one who was more favorable to the governor. The new chair dismissed the investigation.
In 2009, over 3,000 men and women were on death row, and Texas alone had over 300 inmates waiting to be executed. Many of them were convicted before DNA evidence was customary to introduce by police or prosecutors.
It is abominable that the United States is so unconcerned with confirming evidence in death row cases. And as the American social right reminded the rest of the country two weeks ago, it is generally disinterested with the lack of fairness or justice in the punishment, let alone the cruelty of it. Still, these are the very same voters who complain about how America is viewed on the international stage today. Considering the huge majority of developed, leading nations that have taken actions to end capital punishment as compared to America’s cavalier attitude towards it, banning the death penalty could be a major route to reestablishing America’s place in the world.
Read more »
0 com

Big Bird: An Endangered Species

In the midst of unimaginable crisis in Japan and Libya, as well as extended protests across the Midwest, it is possible that the conservative Congressional leadership thinks that Americans are not paying attention, and they are probably right. So while the American people are preoccupied by much more terrifying problems, Congress has gone on an attack of its own, taking a lesson from all of the gun rights advocates and hunting down Big Bird.
The end of publicly funded television and radio programing could be devastating for Americans. Perhaps that sounds hyperbolic, but it is not. Programs like National Public Radio (NPR), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) are not the entertainment-based, liberal subsidies that the conservatives in Congress like to pretend they are. In fact, they provide vital services to all Americans.
PBS offers unique programing for young children through PBS Kids. Programs like Sesame Street, Arthur, and Cyberchase provide educational television for preschoolers and elementary school students. Where else could this sort of early-education television be found? The fact is, no other network does for children what PBS does. Families that cannot afford early education may find some substitute in the math and reading-centric shows PBS carries. No show on Disney or Nickelodeon or any other kid's channel provides such educational benefit.
And NPR, too, provides a valuable service to Americans. In a radio format, NPR is able to truly break down news and make it understandable to average people, while also delivering world and local news as well as giving a voice to issues that media that has to pay for itself cannot afford to cover. Cutting NPR funding means cutting easy access to news and information to thousands of people. NPR remains one of the most comprehensive and investigative journalistic outlets in the United States. Beyond losing news access, cutting NPR funding means eliminating one of the only truly journalistically responsible news organizations in the country.
Cutting funding to federally funded broadcasting companies is one of those political choices that has no real benefits and serious ramifications. In a world without PBS and NPR, low-income children are at an even further disadvantage than they are now; the achievement gap grows beyond recognition; good journalism is punished in favor of weakly constructed political fights; Americans lose trusted news. How is this worth cheap political points?
Read more »
0 com

Not Quite an Anti-Poverty Campaign

The Republican leadership- both in DC and nationally- has never really championed the war on poverty. Now, however, the GOP is engaging in a series of legislative actions that directly undermine the very federal programs that help support the poorest Americans.
For example, new Speaker John Boehner wants to cut funds for Social Security and Medicare. He has already defunded Planned Parenthood. Governors across America including, most notably, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, are attempting to cripple unions, especially public employee unions. The House has already campaigned to end the 2009 health care reforms that are vital to America's working families.
Working class Americans rely on these programs and have, for some, for more than 80 years. Ending these funds could be devastating to thousands of families.
If there's anything the government is supposed to do, it is help Americans who cannot support themselves. Yet, the House Republicans are trying to defund this very basic function of government in America.
And with that as the goal, these actions are not at all unexpected. There have been month-long rumblings about shutting down the federal government from seemingly mainstream conservatives. Ending these vital programs is only a first step towards that end.
Beyond that, its is clear that the GOP's targets are social programs (see: Planned Parenthood, Medicare), not economic excess. Look at Wisconsin's anti-union politics. Considering that the unions have already conceded the financial points of Walker's plan, how would the economy benefit from ending collective bargaining or strikes? Republicans across the country were elected on a platform of economic recovery. It is time for them to deliver on that platform and leave social programs alone.
Read more »
0 com

"All Politics is Local" or How the Republicans Won the Midterms

One of the best-known political sayings, especially for Congressional campaigns, is the oft-quoted "all politics is local"- meaning that running on an individual candidate basis and on each incumbent's personal record is always more effective than running as a group of candidates with a national party platform. Well, here's the biggest lesson Democrats can learn from Tuesday night: all politics is not local. The Democrats ran very, very local campaigns- every ad, every speech was about the race-specific candidates and the local issues. But if there can ever be an all-or-none winner in politics, the Democrats lost this year. The Republicans, on the other hand, commanded a 'wave' election; their nationally-minded campaigns energized voters and turned independents against Democrats they had supported just two years earlier.
The Republican strategy was hardly surprising. For months- ever since a several page document on Republican talking points was leaked to Politico- it has been understood how the Republicans would run for the midterms. Essentially, each Republican candidate this year ran a miniature piece of a national campaign against Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the National Democratic Party. They effectively set the national vocabulary (Obamacare), the national agenda, and demonized the Democratic leadership, most notably Nancy Pelosi.
And for the Republicans, it worked. If this had been a presidential election, Obama would have been defeated rather swiftly. For some reason, the Democrats seemed to have forgotten how to win an election cycle, a skill they had mastered only two years ago, and this new inability to participate in politics in mirrored in Democratic actions in Congress. For a group of people who run on platforms where the individual issues are incredibly popular and have passed reforms of all types- health care, banking regulation, credit, pay equality, student loan- the Democrats are completely unable to sell their platform. If the Democrats cannot sell their agenda, they will be hard-pressed to find Republicans who want to compromise with them. If Democrats cannot sell their agenda, they had best look forward to another election just like this one- or worse.
So, Democrats, learn to partake in real politics. It may not always be the most graceful way to pass your far-reaching plans, but with a new Republican majority in the house, it may be the only way to do so.
Read more »
0 com

Quote 8/3/10


Anthony Weiner 

"If you believe this is a bad idea to provide healthcare, then vote no. But don't give me the cowardly view that 'oh if it was a different procedure'.."

Read more »
0 com

Crist Can't Be Saved


Florida Governor Charlie Crist, formerly a hopeful and attractive GOP superstar whose name was once floated as a serious presidential contender, is the latest Republican candidate to fall victim to a tea party candidate in a Republican primary. Marco Rubio, the much younger and extremely conservative poll-leader for the Florida Senate primary, is poised to take the Republican nomination away from the popular governor. In past days, as Crist has made some vaguely moderate decisions, he was abandoned by former endorsers and his own campaign staff. Although Crist continues to narrowly lead the general poll, he may never get to run in the general; the deadline for Crist to pull out of the primary and run as an Independent, as many expect him to do, is just over a week away. It is very unlikely Crist would be able to win the Republican primary.

Other Republicans have quickly deserted Crist. Even Senator John McCain, onetime 'maverick' (although, don't forget, he never considered himself one), has said that if Crist runs as an Independent, he can consider McCain's endorsement void.
Is this what the Republican Party has become? Its viable candidates are only those like Rubio, or only those who have the momentum of the tea party behind them, and people like Crist, popular and qualified, are unelectable unless they run left in a last-ditch effort to enter the general. Limiting your electoral pool to only those who completely and totally identify with the most extreme version of your ideology is neither productive nor viable, for, eventually, your candidates will polarize so many voters that they will turn to the Democrats, whether or not they identify with the left in any way. 
Read more »
0 com

RNC

Since Michael Steele won the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee (RNC) last year, he had been involved in several scandals, both his own and those of the RNC. These have all culminated in the recent resignation of the RNC Chief of Staff, which has sparked talk that Steele is unable to carry out his responsibilities as the leader of the Republican Party. It is the job of the RNC to promote the Republican Party on a national scale, and Steele is, by tarnishing what reputation the party has left, not completing that job.

Soon after being declared chairman, Steele called Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal his "slum" buddy, referring to the Indian official in what many considered a racial slur. Later, the chairman came under fire for not hiring staff after a massive overhaul of RNC employees. More recently, Steele and the RNC have fueled contention over their spending and fundraising habits. A private RNC slideshow comparing President Obama to the Joker and calling Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid the "Evil Empire" was intercepted by Politico. The slideshow was an incentivizing fundraising presentation for high value donors, and was presented with the knowledge of Steele. Most recently, spending documents of the RNC have revealed expenses at inappropriate clubs in Los Angeles and an a liquor store.

These are not ways to improve the reputation of any party, let alone one that was sweepingly defeated in the most recent national election. Steele obviously is not the right person to project an image of a 'new' Republican Party to America- but who is? Certainly not the party's most visible members, its television representatives like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Nor is the party's loudest member, Rush Limbaugh, right for the job. The Republican Party needs to turn within itself- as the Democratic Party did not so long ago- and decide what direction the party is headed. Will they turn towards their loud, fumbling leaders like Steele? Will the Tea Party become the new norm? Or will the party return to their long-loyal politicians like Mitt Romney? The decisions made over the next few years about the direction of the Republican Party could, ultimately, decide the longevity of the party on a national scale.
Read more »
0 com

GOP Leadership

Michael Steele, the contentious chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), is, in all technicality, the official leader of the Republican Party nationally. Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell are the highest ranking congressional Republicans, and Sen. John McCain is the party’s most recent presidential nominee. However, Republican leadership has been attributed to everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck to Mitt Romney.
The future of the GOP is an incredibly uncertain one, as current obstructionist tactics are unlikely to propel Republicans through either the 2010 midterms or the 2012 presidential, and the question of who will emerge as a Republican Party leader and candidate going into the 2012 election will be highly discussed. Potential candidates, including Romney, Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Tim Pawlenty, have all already been considered by the media as a new Republican leader, but none have really taken ownership of the party.
Romney, a more moderate conservative, would have a hard time achieving the GOP nomination if the tea party objects to his slightly more right-of-center beliefs, and the same goes for Pawlenty, although he appears to be becoming consistently more conservative. Palin, on the other hand, would have a contrasting problem. Her controversial actions and far-right beliefs would make her nearly impossible to market as a mainstream candidate, even to very conservative Republican voters.
Currently, no Republican in national office has complete leadership over the party. It is in Republican’s best interests to enter the 2012 elections united under one candidate. The inclusion of a tea party candidate or a struggle during nomination between traditional Republicans and the tea party will give massive advantage to the Democratic Party.
In order for Republicans to be united in 2012, a leader needs to emerge. Whether this leader is Palin, Romney, or even Beck doesn’t matter, as long as Republicans are in complete support of this leader. Otherwise, as Keith Olbermann said on his show Monday in a Special Comment, they will go from being “the party of no… to the party of no relevancy.”
 
Read more »
0 com

How to Win in 2012



Democrats have had a hard year. It's probable that Democrats will have a hard midterm election and a tough 2012 presidential race. Already, at this year's CPAC, Republican challengers have begun to emerge. In the CPAC straw poll, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Tim Pawlenty all got sizable portions of the vote. Even though the CPAC vote was split, if the Republican Party is able to put up a unified front behind a strong candidate in 2012, the Democratic Party will have a very difficult time winning the election, even with an incumbent.
So the key to Democratic victory becomes isolating the Republican Party into two lesser groups: the 'traditional' fiscal Republicans who are likely to support someone like Romney, and the more polarized, 'tea party' Republicans. However, splitting Republican votes in the primary will only go so far- the Republicans are very skilled at party unification. The DNC must work to split conservative votes in the general, with the introduction of a third party candidate.
Similarly to this year's election in the 23rd district of New York, in order to ensure Democratic victory, the 'tea party', or a similar third party radical conservative group, needs to nominate their own candidate in the general election. New York's 23rd district is a case study in when this works for Democrats. A district which had been a Republican stronghold for years quickly flipped Democrat when the tea party candidate was a challenger in the general. If the same effect is replicated in 2012, the Democrats will easily win the presidency.
The DNC needs to take steps to ensure the nomination of a third party candidate. Some portion of Democratic campaign funds ought to be passed directly onto the tea party. It is imperative that the second challenger is a strong one, able to garner enough votes to significantly impact the Republican candidate.
Read more »
0 com

Why We Need More Anthony Weiners in the Democratic Party


Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is one of the most passionate and over-the-top orators in Congress. Wednesday in the House, Weiner fervently declared that "every single Republican [he] had ever met in [his] life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry." Although many may disagree with Rep. Weiner's statements, they certainly have an impact.
One of the Democrat's most fundamental issues is their inability to convey their views and opinions to voters. Often, Democrats are completely unable to get the American public to be aware of the issues important to the Democratic party and are just as unable to explain to their constituants what Republicans are doing wrong. Expressing party opinion is something Republicans excel at, as they know how to make noise about any issue and how to garner public attention.
In many cases, Democrats keep emotion out of their rhetoric and, therefore, make their message unreachable by American voters. The Democratic members of Congress need to allow their speeches to become more emotional if they want their platform to stay relevant to the American public.
If more Democrats begin to speak as Weiner or his colleague Barney Frank, who compared an angry constituant to a dining room table last year, do, they will have a greater change of staying competitive in the national debate with Republicans. It may not be the nicest or cleanest way to get your point across, but in this political climate, where cutting through all the other noise is paramount, it could be the most effective.
Read more »
0 com

Joe Lieberman's Health Care

All members of Congress who are planning to vote for the newly Lieberman-affected health care are essentially putting the attractiveness of passing a bill over cost-effective and productive content. This bill currently has no viable option as an alternative to private health care insurance, it does not extend Medicare to those over 55, and it does not seriously limit the powers of insurance companies, rather, it imposes weak regulation upon them and forces all Americans to purchase over-expensive private insurance.


The simple math of it is that the Democrats need sixty votes to pass health care reform in the Senate- their entire caucus. Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad are some of the few final senators needed to support the bill. Nelson and Conrad seemed willing to vote for the trigger public option and the extended Medicare bill, but Lieberman said he would vote with the Republicans against cloture. Because of Lieberman, the bill was watered down to its current, completely unproductive form.


If Lieberman proves unwilling to support the old bill- the one with extended Medicare and a public option, then he needs to be removed as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Read more »
The Liberal Hype site claims no credit for any images featured on this site unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to its respective owners. Liberal Hype is in no way responsible for, or has control of, the content of any external website links or embedded streaming videos. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies. If you own rights to any of the content and wish to have it removed please contact at liberalhype@gmail.com. My Tangled Tale, Vinyl, The Dull Drama, First Draft Magician, and other partners are produced by respective owners, and Liberal Hype claims no connection to any information they publish.