Via Politico:
The Republican National Committee approved a resolution Wednesday calling on Democrats to “stop pushing our country toward socialism.”What did they call it, the "Neener, Neener, Neener" Resolution? Boys and girls, if your party is tanking pretty much across the board, maybe now is not the very best time for meaningless and juvenile rhetorical gestures.
The approved resolution was a watered-down version of a previous measure that referred to Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”
And this is just rich:
“The Republican Party strongly believes that a government which spends without restraint, incurs record amounts of debt, owns banks and makes cars is not the right kind of ‘change’ America needs. Republicans are united in opposition to the destructive policies of the President and Congressional Democrats."Let's just step back and look at that for a moment. The Democrats were not the party that went on a simultaneous orgy of tax cutting and deficit spending over the past several years, so the GOP can go back to buffing its glass house, as far as I'm concerned. Further, "owns banks and makes cars" is a particularly slanted take on "rescues large financial institutions and major parts of the manufacturing sector from failure."
Randy Pullen, the chairman on the Arizona Republican Party, told POLITICO that Steele’s position was supported by a number of committee members.Look, Randy. (May I call you Randy?) The financial and auto industries were taking on a lot of water, and the government has been handing them large, costly buckets for the past several months. I'm not sure what your brilliant plan for rescuing the economy was, but I don't know if it counts as "marching toward socialism" if one is trying to keep the banking and auto industries solvent. When Obama has your farm seized, let me know, and I'll reconsider my position.
“That was the right thing to do,” Pullen said. “It does reflect the sentiment of the committee that Democrats are marching toward socialism.”
Posts
Calling the Dems "socialist" is an insult to socialists. The current thinking in DC is for government to organize and control business for the greater social good. This was tried a few decades back in the south of Europe. The trains ran on time, as was famously noted, but I doubt seriously that Mr. Obama has anywhere near the skill that Mr. Mussolini demonstrated.
ReplyDeleteOh piddle, John. "Fascist" is a more tired political brickbat than "socialist," even if you don't use the word in question.
ReplyDeleteYawn. What else you got?
Obaminamics is failure, but by design. He's done so much so fast, it can't be stupidity, but design. The list is so long for just 100+ days.
ReplyDeleteI didn't use the F-word because, as you point out, today it basically means "something I really don't like."
ReplyDeleteHowever, a corporatist economic policy is pretty much what Mr. Obama has adopted, along with am authoritarian, paternalistic mode of governing. For classic fascism, all he needs to do is turn up the nationalism several notches.
Interesting blog you've got there, Foxwood. Glad you've got a vector for your opinions. And shouldn't it be spelled "Obamanomics"?
ReplyDeleteAnd John, feel free to enlighten me about how Obama is markedly more authoritarian or paternalistic than his predecessors.
Sure. I don't recall any previous President firing the head of a publicly traded corporation. I can't recall any President before now refusing to allow public monies to be repaid in order to keep corporations under stricter regulations. I can't recall any President demonizing holders of senior debt in order to force more favorable treatment of union workers (even though the holders of the senior debt included unions and public employee retirement funds).
ReplyDeleteAs far as paternalistic, just look at the utter disdane the President has expressed towards the United Kingdom, a staunch and extremely valuable long-time ally of the US. Or look at Mr. Obama's campaign rhetoric about bible-thumping, god-clinging, gun-hugging rural voters. Can you find anything even remotely comparable from past Presidents' campaigns?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete