To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Numerous people have commented on the deeply repellent behavior from former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey on Hardball yesterday, when he appeared with Salon's Joan Walsh. You can watch the video here. After
dismissively cackling every time Walsh spoke, Armey finally spat at
her: "I am so damn glad that you could never be my wife, 'cause I
surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you ev
Numerous people have commented on the deeply repellent behavior from former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey on Hardball yesterday, when he appeared with Salon's Joan Walsh. You can watch the video here. After
dismissively cackling every time Walsh spoke, Armey finally spat at
her: "I am so damn glad that you could never be my wife, 'cause I
surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you every day."
I want to focus on two points highlighted by this episode:
First,
Dick Armey isn't some obscure, aberrational Republican. He was one of
the key leaders of the so-called "Gingrich Revolution" of the 1990s,
when the modern incarnation of the Republican Party fully degenerated
into the crazed, primitive, regional mess that it is today. He wasn't
a back-bencher. He was the Republicans' House Majority Leader for
eight years -- from 1995 to 2003 (when he left Congress, failed to have
his son elected to his seat, and was replaced as the GOP's House
Majority Leader by Tom DeLay).
People like Dick Armey -- and
Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity -- are the face of today's GOP, its heart
and soul. Armey, who once notoriously referred to Barney Frank as
"Barney Fag," comes from a faction -- the Texas Republican Party --
that continues to advocate formally in its 2008 Party Platform (.pdf), among so many wonderful planks, that sex between gay people be criminalized and that all gay citizens be denied the most basic rights, including even the right to adopt children and to have custody over their own children [p.12]:
We
also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child
abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a
minor child, and that visitation by such persons with a minor child
should be prohibited [p. 14]. . . .
The Texas GOP
wants creationism taught in the public schools alongside evolution and
given "equal treatment" [p. 17]; Guantanamo to remain opened [p. 24];
the U.S. military to remain in Iraq with no timetable for withdrawal
[p. 24]; and extraordinary medical care to be denied to all prisoners
except for those who can pay for it themselves [p. 19].
The
party's 2008 Platform also demands that the U.S. -- this is really what
it says -- "cease strong arming Israel" by pressuring them "to make
future diplomatic concessions, such as giving up land to
the Palestinians on the West Bank" [p. 24]. American policy towards
Israel, they argue, should be "based on God's biblical promise to bless
those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further
invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefit of that
promise" [p. 24]. Armey himself, in a 2002 Hardball appearance, advocated that Palestinians should "leave" the West Bank and Gaza
(which Armey believes is part of Israel) and go somewhere else. His
state party's Platform also wants the U.S. to "immediately rescind our
membership in, as well as financial and military contributions to, the
United Nations" [p. 25] .
These are the people
who have largely been in power for the last two decades and the country
is in the shape one would expect it to be in as a result. That's why
all of this chatter about post-partisan transcendence and
trans-partisan harmony and the like is so inane.
Why would
anyone think that "common ground," on any consistent basis, can be
found with people like this, or that it would be beneficial to
eliminate real differences in order to accommodate their views? People
in this country -- like most countries -- have radically different
views of things, and politics is about having those ideas compete with
one another for persuasive supremacy. This compulsion to eliminate
differences and disharmony in pursuit of some feel-good, trans-partisan
consensus is not only futile but also destructive. Why would it be a
good idea to mold one's beliefs and actions to induce the assent of the
Dick Armeys and the Texas GOPs, even if that could be done?
Second,
Republicans have made about as clear as possible that even though
they'll pay lip service to "bipartisanship," they don't actually want
that. The principal criticism Armey was launching at Joan Walsh in
that Hardball segment was that she, along with most people,
degrade our politics generally, and our economic debates specifically,
by turning them into partisan wars. We should rise above that for the
good of the country, Armey repeatedly intoned.
But please go read the email that John Cole posted last night
about the stimulus package which the very same Dick "Post-Partisan"
Armey was sending around on behalf of his group FreedomWorks, on the very day he was on Hardball
excoriating those who want to politicize our economic debates. Armey's
mass-emailed screed urges opposition to the stimulus package as nothing
more than "the Left's Multi-Billion Dollar Handout to Liberal Allies."
As I've
documented many times before, Beltway "bipartisanship" means that
Democrats adopt as many GOP beliefs as possible so what ultimately is
done resembles Republican policies as much as possible (anyone doubting
that should simply review these "bipartisan" votes of the last eight years).
I'm glad that the stimulus package yesterday -- which Democrats
watered down and comprised on as much as possible to please Republicans
-- did not attract even a single Republican vote in the House: not one.
Republicans
aren't interested in "bipartisanship" except to the extent that they
can force Democrats to enact their policies even though they have only
a small minority thanks to being so forcefully rejected by the
citizenry. And why should they be interested in bipartisanship? Why
should they vote for a stimulus package that they don't support and
that is anathema to what their most ardent supporters believe? It's
very hard to find any virtuous attribute of the contemporary Republican
Party, but one thing that can be said for them is that -- unlike
Democrats, whose overarching desire in life is to please the needy harmony fetishists by adopting as many GOP views as possible -- Republicans are willing to incur criticisms by opposing what they oppose and supporting what they support.
And that's how it should be. As Atrios wrote yesterday:
If
I were advising the Republicans I would've told them to vote against
the stimulus package. I would tell them to make the point clearly that
if they were in charge, the bill would be a different bill. They're a
competing political party and they need to, you know, highlight the
fact that their vision for America is actually different. I appreciate
that members of both parties don't always toe the line completely, but
on a bill as big as this it makes perfect sense for it to play out as
it did.Of course the flip side is that Dems should've
pushed the best plan that could pass the Senate instead of pushing some
pointless fantasy about bipartisanship.
Some
Obama supporters will claim that the whole post-partisan song is
nothing more than a political game, a super-shrewd, exotic political
tactic Obama is employing in order to cast the GOP as
obstructionists. But if so, that's a Beltway tactic almost as old as Obama himself.
Media Broderites and The Third Way have been demanding for decades that
Democrats move as close as possible to Republicans in the name of
overcoming partisanship (for instance, watch as Time's Joe Klein desperately tries to convince Dick Armey
himself not to view Klein as a radical who is far away from Armey, but
rather, that they're both "playing between the 40-yard-lines here").
Partisan
disputes happen because people are very different and have very
different views. Partisanship is about advocating for your own beliefs
and discrediting the beliefs that you reject and believe are harmful.
This doesn't mean that these disagreements must or should break down
along Republican/Democratic lines. On so many critical, contentious
issues, the leadership of the two parties are in perfect harmony. Many
of the worst policies are embraced by the mainstream of both parties,
and the real disagreements now break down on other lines, whether it be
insider/outsider or diverging socioeconomic interests or
rapidly-re-aligning ideological divisions. But politics is and should
be about defeating ideas -- and people -- that are discredited and
destructive.
To see why that's a good thing, not a bad thing, go
watch the Dick Armey video or read the platform of the Texas GOP. Or
re-review what has happened over the last eight years. The further
away one is from that morass, the better; the closer one is to it, the
worse off things will be.
UPDATE: Those claiming
that Obama has masterfully depicted the Republicans as arrogant
obstructionists by extending the hand of compromise should review this
latest Rasmussen Reports poll,
which finds the public split almost evenly on whether they support the
Obama/Democratic economic recovery package, with a clear trend towards
increased opposition.
This is what happens every single
time: the Democrats do everything possible to "accommodate" the
Republican position and then get attacked anyway (they voted in large
numbers for the Iraq War in and then got attacked for being soft on
Terror in 2002; they voted for virtually every Bush "Terrorism" policy
and the same thing happened, etc.). Here, they did everything possible
to change their bill to please Republicans and nothing is happening
except full-scale GOP opposition accompanied by a constant barrage of GOP attacks against them as big-spending, reckless, wealth-transferring liberals.
Ultimately,
the success of this program will be measured by whether it produces
successful results, so why shouldn't Democrats use their majority to
enact the policy they think is most likely to achieve that? That's
true on this issue and in general.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Numerous people have commented on the deeply repellent behavior from former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey on Hardball yesterday, when he appeared with Salon's Joan Walsh. You can watch the video here. After
dismissively cackling every time Walsh spoke, Armey finally spat at
her: "I am so damn glad that you could never be my wife, 'cause I
surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you every day."
I want to focus on two points highlighted by this episode:
First,
Dick Armey isn't some obscure, aberrational Republican. He was one of
the key leaders of the so-called "Gingrich Revolution" of the 1990s,
when the modern incarnation of the Republican Party fully degenerated
into the crazed, primitive, regional mess that it is today. He wasn't
a back-bencher. He was the Republicans' House Majority Leader for
eight years -- from 1995 to 2003 (when he left Congress, failed to have
his son elected to his seat, and was replaced as the GOP's House
Majority Leader by Tom DeLay).
People like Dick Armey -- and
Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity -- are the face of today's GOP, its heart
and soul. Armey, who once notoriously referred to Barney Frank as
"Barney Fag," comes from a faction -- the Texas Republican Party --
that continues to advocate formally in its 2008 Party Platform (.pdf), among so many wonderful planks, that sex between gay people be criminalized and that all gay citizens be denied the most basic rights, including even the right to adopt children and to have custody over their own children [p.12]:
We
also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child
abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a
minor child, and that visitation by such persons with a minor child
should be prohibited [p. 14]. . . .
The Texas GOP
wants creationism taught in the public schools alongside evolution and
given "equal treatment" [p. 17]; Guantanamo to remain opened [p. 24];
the U.S. military to remain in Iraq with no timetable for withdrawal
[p. 24]; and extraordinary medical care to be denied to all prisoners
except for those who can pay for it themselves [p. 19].
The
party's 2008 Platform also demands that the U.S. -- this is really what
it says -- "cease strong arming Israel" by pressuring them "to make
future diplomatic concessions, such as giving up land to
the Palestinians on the West Bank" [p. 24]. American policy towards
Israel, they argue, should be "based on God's biblical promise to bless
those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further
invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefit of that
promise" [p. 24]. Armey himself, in a 2002 Hardball appearance, advocated that Palestinians should "leave" the West Bank and Gaza
(which Armey believes is part of Israel) and go somewhere else. His
state party's Platform also wants the U.S. to "immediately rescind our
membership in, as well as financial and military contributions to, the
United Nations" [p. 25] .
These are the people
who have largely been in power for the last two decades and the country
is in the shape one would expect it to be in as a result. That's why
all of this chatter about post-partisan transcendence and
trans-partisan harmony and the like is so inane.
Why would
anyone think that "common ground," on any consistent basis, can be
found with people like this, or that it would be beneficial to
eliminate real differences in order to accommodate their views? People
in this country -- like most countries -- have radically different
views of things, and politics is about having those ideas compete with
one another for persuasive supremacy. This compulsion to eliminate
differences and disharmony in pursuit of some feel-good, trans-partisan
consensus is not only futile but also destructive. Why would it be a
good idea to mold one's beliefs and actions to induce the assent of the
Dick Armeys and the Texas GOPs, even if that could be done?
Second,
Republicans have made about as clear as possible that even though
they'll pay lip service to "bipartisanship," they don't actually want
that. The principal criticism Armey was launching at Joan Walsh in
that Hardball segment was that she, along with most people,
degrade our politics generally, and our economic debates specifically,
by turning them into partisan wars. We should rise above that for the
good of the country, Armey repeatedly intoned.
But please go read the email that John Cole posted last night
about the stimulus package which the very same Dick "Post-Partisan"
Armey was sending around on behalf of his group FreedomWorks, on the very day he was on Hardball
excoriating those who want to politicize our economic debates. Armey's
mass-emailed screed urges opposition to the stimulus package as nothing
more than "the Left's Multi-Billion Dollar Handout to Liberal Allies."
As I've
documented many times before, Beltway "bipartisanship" means that
Democrats adopt as many GOP beliefs as possible so what ultimately is
done resembles Republican policies as much as possible (anyone doubting
that should simply review these "bipartisan" votes of the last eight years).
I'm glad that the stimulus package yesterday -- which Democrats
watered down and comprised on as much as possible to please Republicans
-- did not attract even a single Republican vote in the House: not one.
Republicans
aren't interested in "bipartisanship" except to the extent that they
can force Democrats to enact their policies even though they have only
a small minority thanks to being so forcefully rejected by the
citizenry. And why should they be interested in bipartisanship? Why
should they vote for a stimulus package that they don't support and
that is anathema to what their most ardent supporters believe? It's
very hard to find any virtuous attribute of the contemporary Republican
Party, but one thing that can be said for them is that -- unlike
Democrats, whose overarching desire in life is to please the needy harmony fetishists by adopting as many GOP views as possible -- Republicans are willing to incur criticisms by opposing what they oppose and supporting what they support.
And that's how it should be. As Atrios wrote yesterday:
If
I were advising the Republicans I would've told them to vote against
the stimulus package. I would tell them to make the point clearly that
if they were in charge, the bill would be a different bill. They're a
competing political party and they need to, you know, highlight the
fact that their vision for America is actually different. I appreciate
that members of both parties don't always toe the line completely, but
on a bill as big as this it makes perfect sense for it to play out as
it did.Of course the flip side is that Dems should've
pushed the best plan that could pass the Senate instead of pushing some
pointless fantasy about bipartisanship.
Some
Obama supporters will claim that the whole post-partisan song is
nothing more than a political game, a super-shrewd, exotic political
tactic Obama is employing in order to cast the GOP as
obstructionists. But if so, that's a Beltway tactic almost as old as Obama himself.
Media Broderites and The Third Way have been demanding for decades that
Democrats move as close as possible to Republicans in the name of
overcoming partisanship (for instance, watch as Time's Joe Klein desperately tries to convince Dick Armey
himself not to view Klein as a radical who is far away from Armey, but
rather, that they're both "playing between the 40-yard-lines here").
Partisan
disputes happen because people are very different and have very
different views. Partisanship is about advocating for your own beliefs
and discrediting the beliefs that you reject and believe are harmful.
This doesn't mean that these disagreements must or should break down
along Republican/Democratic lines. On so many critical, contentious
issues, the leadership of the two parties are in perfect harmony. Many
of the worst policies are embraced by the mainstream of both parties,
and the real disagreements now break down on other lines, whether it be
insider/outsider or diverging socioeconomic interests or
rapidly-re-aligning ideological divisions. But politics is and should
be about defeating ideas -- and people -- that are discredited and
destructive.
To see why that's a good thing, not a bad thing, go
watch the Dick Armey video or read the platform of the Texas GOP. Or
re-review what has happened over the last eight years. The further
away one is from that morass, the better; the closer one is to it, the
worse off things will be.
UPDATE: Those claiming
that Obama has masterfully depicted the Republicans as arrogant
obstructionists by extending the hand of compromise should review this
latest Rasmussen Reports poll,
which finds the public split almost evenly on whether they support the
Obama/Democratic economic recovery package, with a clear trend towards
increased opposition.
This is what happens every single
time: the Democrats do everything possible to "accommodate" the
Republican position and then get attacked anyway (they voted in large
numbers for the Iraq War in and then got attacked for being soft on
Terror in 2002; they voted for virtually every Bush "Terrorism" policy
and the same thing happened, etc.). Here, they did everything possible
to change their bill to please Republicans and nothing is happening
except full-scale GOP opposition accompanied by a constant barrage of GOP attacks against them as big-spending, reckless, wealth-transferring liberals.
Ultimately,
the success of this program will be measured by whether it produces
successful results, so why shouldn't Democrats use their majority to
enact the policy they think is most likely to achieve that? That's
true on this issue and in general.
Numerous people have commented on the deeply repellent behavior from former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey on Hardball yesterday, when he appeared with Salon's Joan Walsh. You can watch the video here. After
dismissively cackling every time Walsh spoke, Armey finally spat at
her: "I am so damn glad that you could never be my wife, 'cause I
surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you every day."
I want to focus on two points highlighted by this episode:
First,
Dick Armey isn't some obscure, aberrational Republican. He was one of
the key leaders of the so-called "Gingrich Revolution" of the 1990s,
when the modern incarnation of the Republican Party fully degenerated
into the crazed, primitive, regional mess that it is today. He wasn't
a back-bencher. He was the Republicans' House Majority Leader for
eight years -- from 1995 to 2003 (when he left Congress, failed to have
his son elected to his seat, and was replaced as the GOP's House
Majority Leader by Tom DeLay).
People like Dick Armey -- and
Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity -- are the face of today's GOP, its heart
and soul. Armey, who once notoriously referred to Barney Frank as
"Barney Fag," comes from a faction -- the Texas Republican Party --
that continues to advocate formally in its 2008 Party Platform (.pdf), among so many wonderful planks, that sex between gay people be criminalized and that all gay citizens be denied the most basic rights, including even the right to adopt children and to have custody over their own children [p.12]:
We
also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child
abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a
minor child, and that visitation by such persons with a minor child
should be prohibited [p. 14]. . . .
The Texas GOP
wants creationism taught in the public schools alongside evolution and
given "equal treatment" [p. 17]; Guantanamo to remain opened [p. 24];
the U.S. military to remain in Iraq with no timetable for withdrawal
[p. 24]; and extraordinary medical care to be denied to all prisoners
except for those who can pay for it themselves [p. 19].
The
party's 2008 Platform also demands that the U.S. -- this is really what
it says -- "cease strong arming Israel" by pressuring them "to make
future diplomatic concessions, such as giving up land to
the Palestinians on the West Bank" [p. 24]. American policy towards
Israel, they argue, should be "based on God's biblical promise to bless
those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further
invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefit of that
promise" [p. 24]. Armey himself, in a 2002 Hardball appearance, advocated that Palestinians should "leave" the West Bank and Gaza
(which Armey believes is part of Israel) and go somewhere else. His
state party's Platform also wants the U.S. to "immediately rescind our
membership in, as well as financial and military contributions to, the
United Nations" [p. 25] .
These are the people
who have largely been in power for the last two decades and the country
is in the shape one would expect it to be in as a result. That's why
all of this chatter about post-partisan transcendence and
trans-partisan harmony and the like is so inane.
Why would
anyone think that "common ground," on any consistent basis, can be
found with people like this, or that it would be beneficial to
eliminate real differences in order to accommodate their views? People
in this country -- like most countries -- have radically different
views of things, and politics is about having those ideas compete with
one another for persuasive supremacy. This compulsion to eliminate
differences and disharmony in pursuit of some feel-good, trans-partisan
consensus is not only futile but also destructive. Why would it be a
good idea to mold one's beliefs and actions to induce the assent of the
Dick Armeys and the Texas GOPs, even if that could be done?
Second,
Republicans have made about as clear as possible that even though
they'll pay lip service to "bipartisanship," they don't actually want
that. The principal criticism Armey was launching at Joan Walsh in
that Hardball segment was that she, along with most people,
degrade our politics generally, and our economic debates specifically,
by turning them into partisan wars. We should rise above that for the
good of the country, Armey repeatedly intoned.
But please go read the email that John Cole posted last night
about the stimulus package which the very same Dick "Post-Partisan"
Armey was sending around on behalf of his group FreedomWorks, on the very day he was on Hardball
excoriating those who want to politicize our economic debates. Armey's
mass-emailed screed urges opposition to the stimulus package as nothing
more than "the Left's Multi-Billion Dollar Handout to Liberal Allies."
As I've
documented many times before, Beltway "bipartisanship" means that
Democrats adopt as many GOP beliefs as possible so what ultimately is
done resembles Republican policies as much as possible (anyone doubting
that should simply review these "bipartisan" votes of the last eight years).
I'm glad that the stimulus package yesterday -- which Democrats
watered down and comprised on as much as possible to please Republicans
-- did not attract even a single Republican vote in the House: not one.
Republicans
aren't interested in "bipartisanship" except to the extent that they
can force Democrats to enact their policies even though they have only
a small minority thanks to being so forcefully rejected by the
citizenry. And why should they be interested in bipartisanship? Why
should they vote for a stimulus package that they don't support and
that is anathema to what their most ardent supporters believe? It's
very hard to find any virtuous attribute of the contemporary Republican
Party, but one thing that can be said for them is that -- unlike
Democrats, whose overarching desire in life is to please the needy harmony fetishists by adopting as many GOP views as possible -- Republicans are willing to incur criticisms by opposing what they oppose and supporting what they support.
And that's how it should be. As Atrios wrote yesterday:
If
I were advising the Republicans I would've told them to vote against
the stimulus package. I would tell them to make the point clearly that
if they were in charge, the bill would be a different bill. They're a
competing political party and they need to, you know, highlight the
fact that their vision for America is actually different. I appreciate
that members of both parties don't always toe the line completely, but
on a bill as big as this it makes perfect sense for it to play out as
it did.Of course the flip side is that Dems should've
pushed the best plan that could pass the Senate instead of pushing some
pointless fantasy about bipartisanship.
Some
Obama supporters will claim that the whole post-partisan song is
nothing more than a political game, a super-shrewd, exotic political
tactic Obama is employing in order to cast the GOP as
obstructionists. But if so, that's a Beltway tactic almost as old as Obama himself.
Media Broderites and The Third Way have been demanding for decades that
Democrats move as close as possible to Republicans in the name of
overcoming partisanship (for instance, watch as Time's Joe Klein desperately tries to convince Dick Armey
himself not to view Klein as a radical who is far away from Armey, but
rather, that they're both "playing between the 40-yard-lines here").
Partisan
disputes happen because people are very different and have very
different views. Partisanship is about advocating for your own beliefs
and discrediting the beliefs that you reject and believe are harmful.
This doesn't mean that these disagreements must or should break down
along Republican/Democratic lines. On so many critical, contentious
issues, the leadership of the two parties are in perfect harmony. Many
of the worst policies are embraced by the mainstream of both parties,
and the real disagreements now break down on other lines, whether it be
insider/outsider or diverging socioeconomic interests or
rapidly-re-aligning ideological divisions. But politics is and should
be about defeating ideas -- and people -- that are discredited and
destructive.
To see why that's a good thing, not a bad thing, go
watch the Dick Armey video or read the platform of the Texas GOP. Or
re-review what has happened over the last eight years. The further
away one is from that morass, the better; the closer one is to it, the
worse off things will be.
UPDATE: Those claiming
that Obama has masterfully depicted the Republicans as arrogant
obstructionists by extending the hand of compromise should review this
latest Rasmussen Reports poll,
which finds the public split almost evenly on whether they support the
Obama/Democratic economic recovery package, with a clear trend towards
increased opposition.
This is what happens every single
time: the Democrats do everything possible to "accommodate" the
Republican position and then get attacked anyway (they voted in large
numbers for the Iraq War in and then got attacked for being soft on
Terror in 2002; they voted for virtually every Bush "Terrorism" policy
and the same thing happened, etc.). Here, they did everything possible
to change their bill to please Republicans and nothing is happening
except full-scale GOP opposition accompanied by a constant barrage of GOP attacks against them as big-spending, reckless, wealth-transferring liberals.
Ultimately,
the success of this program will be measured by whether it produces
successful results, so why shouldn't Democrats use their majority to
enact the policy they think is most likely to achieve that? That's
true on this issue and in general.