Maybe the GOP is quite envious of how the Saudi royals live and rule.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Maybe the GOP is quite envious of how the Saudi royals live and rule.
Dont worry Zuckerberg will be a hated lump eventually.
And Steve jobs was never loved that much.
And Steve jobs was never loved that much.
McCain called the tax claims “outrageous” and “disgraceful” in an interview with Politico Tuesday. He said he chose Palin “because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate.”
Ouch, the ultimate burn!
Eventually? Who likes that guy now?
I'm watching The Five for a laugh...they are so desperate to try and make Romney look good. Beckel can barely contain his mirth at their contortions.
So following on from Grinner's point about the Dems learning not to be such pussies...
I've been amazed at the crapness of the messaging from this White House. Posing as the party of compromise was fine for the election, but once it was clear (which was very quickly) that the GOP was going to opt for total obstruction to derail his agenda, they should have at least made more political capital out of that. If they had, I doubt 2010 would have been such a wipeout.
Also, the recession should have been the Bush Depression in every single reference to it made by a Democrat from day 1, it was so obvious the GOP would try to make Obama own it.
So, questions for yanktards:
1) If Romney wins, will the Dems obstruct in the way the Republicans have? Will they go as far - refusing to pass routine administrative appointments, etc? If so, will the Republicans prove better at turning public opinion against them?
2) If Obama wins, will the GOP do exactly the same thing again? (I'm assuming they will at least keep the House.) Will they face any pressure to compromise in the face of a (one hopes) improving economy and demographic trends moving against them... or will the Tea Party rule the roost for another cycle? Will the Dems be more savvy about it this time?
I've been amazed at the crapness of the messaging from this White House. Posing as the party of compromise was fine for the election, but once it was clear (which was very quickly) that the GOP was going to opt for total obstruction to derail his agenda, they should have at least made more political capital out of that. If they had, I doubt 2010 would have been such a wipeout.
Also, the recession should have been the Bush Depression in every single reference to it made by a Democrat from day 1, it was so obvious the GOP would try to make Obama own it.
So, questions for yanktards:
1) If Romney wins, will the Dems obstruct in the way the Republicans have? Will they go as far - refusing to pass routine administrative appointments, etc? If so, will the Republicans prove better at turning public opinion against them?
2) If Obama wins, will the GOP do exactly the same thing again? (I'm assuming they will at least keep the House.) Will they face any pressure to compromise in the face of a (one hopes) improving economy and demographic trends moving against them... or will the Tea Party rule the roost for another cycle? Will the Dems be more savvy about it this time?
1) Of course they will. Nobody gives a shit about public opinion.
2) Maybe not...they might take a step back after another defeat and seize back the party from the right-tards. They also don't have the idea of stopping Obama getting re-elected to galvanize them since it'll be his last term. We simply cannot go another 4 years of bickering at every little thing.
The big conflict will of course be any SCOTUS nominee and things will heat up when it gets close to the next election. I'm quite optimistic though.
2) Maybe not...they might take a step back after another defeat and seize back the party from the right-tards. They also don't have the idea of stopping Obama getting re-elected to galvanize them since it'll be his last term. We simply cannot go another 4 years of bickering at every little thing.
The big conflict will of course be any SCOTUS nominee and things will heat up when it gets close to the next election. I'm quite optimistic though.
Even assuming the optimistic scenario, though, the Dems will likely be playing deeefense, with Ginsburg ill and pushing eighty and the liberals already a minority. Though Scalia could just explode one day, I suppose.
A Romney win could be a catastrophe on that front, what with Breyer being 73 too and the economy probably motoring again in time for the 2016 election. By the time the Dems got in again it could conceivably be 7-2.
I appear to be less of an optimist than you.
Can't justices just tactically retire during their respective party's time in office to sure up the seats? Or is that frowned upon?
I don't know why you are so convinced that Romney will win. We are currently in the phoney war and he's flailing badly. When things start to get really dirty in September/October how will he handle that? I don't think he's capable of beating the Obama team.
There's even talk of a potential repub-right split coming at the convention because they increasingly see him as incapable of winning.
They can and do - David Souter retired at 70 once Obama got in. But Ginsburg - who's easily the most liberal member of the court - might not make it to the next Democrat victory.
That was just an 'if Romney wins' hypothetical. But my general pessimism is mainly cos I think the Euro's going to break up or at least look in big trouble before the election and feck up the world economy.
Though I've now changed my mind, on the basis that Mike always turns out to be right in the end so you might as well just adopt his view and save yourself the hassle.
Why didn't she retire in the last four years?
I think her frailty is being overstated. I think she also knew that it was going to be a fun 4 years for a justice!
Stevens also retired this term. He was 92 and Souter was sick of it. I think there's a feeling that pushing through a candidate of your ideological stripe against furious opposition exhausts a fair bit of political capital, so 3 in a term would have been a stretch. Plus as Grinner says I think Ginsburg loves it. Being a justice, that is...reading that back it's a slightly dodgy-sounding paragraph.
Plech. These discussions need to be realistic 
....or at least based on as close to what is likely to happen.
Obama will win
Dems will retain the Senate...just
GOP will retain house with reduced majority.
The talk is the moderate republicans will begin to work with the democrats because these people are patriots...not haters of black people like the tea party freaks.
So Obama should have a reasonably successful second term.
I blame the Dems for the 2010 loss..because they did not pass a huge jobs bill. Pelosi is at fault for getting her agenda through and Obama is at fault for believing the GOP were reasonable.
But the Health Care bill should have started with Single Payer...and moved to a public option. Though Obama is at fault...the ultimate fault lies with Nelson and the traitor Lieberman.
If the improbable happens and Romney wins the dems will not be as bad...but perhaps they should fillibuster everything in the senate with the agenda the GOP will have.
I dont even want to think of it....it would be a nightmare.
....or at least based on as close to what is likely to happen.Obama will win
Dems will retain the Senate...just
GOP will retain house with reduced majority.
The talk is the moderate republicans will begin to work with the democrats because these people are patriots...not haters of black people like the tea party freaks.
So Obama should have a reasonably successful second term.
I blame the Dems for the 2010 loss..because they did not pass a huge jobs bill. Pelosi is at fault for getting her agenda through and Obama is at fault for believing the GOP were reasonable.
But the Health Care bill should have started with Single Payer...and moved to a public option. Though Obama is at fault...the ultimate fault lies with Nelson and the traitor Lieberman.
If the improbable happens and Romney wins the dems will not be as bad...but perhaps they should fillibuster everything in the senate with the agenda the GOP will have.
I dont even want to think of it....it would be a nightmare.
I agree with that much at any rate!
Maybe, but I doubt it. The Democrats just don't have the sort of lockstep "What's good for my party is good for the country" mentality that has characterized Republicans for the last 20 years.
With the current crop of Republicans, I think nothing short of a massive electoral rebuke of their party en masse will convince them that the American public have decided to hold them responsible for everything they're actually responsible for.
Sadly, I don't think the American public HAS decided any such thing, and I know far too many reasonably intelligent people who've decided that they're both equally bad, or that the system is just unavoidably broken, and they don't care to think any harder beyond that.
That's it in a nutshell isn't it? The real story of US politics for the last 2 (3?) decades has been the outmaneuvering of the Dems by the Reps for the lower income brackets (the paler ones anyway). It's really staggering. They've somehow replaced the left's truer claim to representation and aligned interests, with a claim to a strangely sympathetic moral self-righteousness. Vocal and conspicuous calls to traditional beliefs in thrift, hard work, denial, etc, wrapped up in the flag. Witness those silly signs those martyrs would hold up proudly announcing their lack of health insurance.
I reckon it's really that trait and belief that's driving the populist wing of the party, the Tea Party clams in particular. I'm not of a conspiratorial mind, but the swells over there must be having a right old laugh.
How it is that the left can't reclaim these is somewhat of a puzzle. Likely for one, given their much more diverse membership, the message they tend to project is somewhat less focused, and they have to equivocate past what winds up fitting into a tidy soundbite.
respect for that post MrMarcello.
From the Obama camp:
spoilered due to size
spoilered due to size
death of a thousand cuts....
I haven't been paying much attention to stuff recently, but why would Romney's economic plan bring 150k jobs to Canada? Is that just from Keystone?
The Obama team is starting roll out the details of the Ryan Budget which all republicans voted on in congress and which Willard finds 'marvelous'.
Biden mentioned it...
btw Obama is making a swing through Texas....speaking to Latino voters. Willard will win Texas...but this must be making his campaign nervous.
Next stop is Florida...and you can bet the President will speak about the GOP plan for Social Security and Medicare.
Its going to be fun.
Biden mentioned it...
btw Obama is making a swing through Texas....speaking to Latino voters. Willard will win Texas...but this must be making his campaign nervous.
Next stop is Florida...and you can bet the President will speak about the GOP plan for Social Security and Medicare.
Its going to be fun.
from the noise the conservatives are making...it does look like they are trying to switch candidates.
wonder what odds Intrade is giving for a non Romney nomination...
wonder what odds Intrade is giving for a non Romney nomination...
Please god let Palin's narcissism convince her to announce.
Mitt Romney to be Republican nominee is at just over 96%. Think it's a fool's wager to bet against him, at this point.
Bad news on the GDP forecast today
Apparently Arpaio has come out with another presser saying Obama's birth certificate is a forgery.
oh..i'd be happy with this empty suit to be their nominee.
the more interesting bet would be when he will release his tax returns.
The new ad from Obama's SuperPAC:
That's the stuff.
Well Romney has the Republican nomination sewn up and I think the rules are that on the first vote the delegates have to vote how they were elected to since that will give Romney the nomination, that sort of ends that. On the ballot there is a seperate conservative party line which usually goes to the Republican candidate, but I suppose they could have a go at switching that.
The only other way would be if Romney dropped out of the process, which seems unlikely.
These speculations about a different nominee than Romney have about the same point as Republican speculations that Democrats are so worried about Obama's record that they'll nominate someone else like Hillary.
Its going to be Romney Vs. Obama and its going to be long hard battle especially with the anti-incumbent feeling in this near recession. Obama will still probably win but I think it'll be by the skin of his teeth.
Its going to be Romney Vs. Obama and its going to be long hard battle especially with the anti-incumbent feeling in this near recession. Obama will still probably win but I think it'll be by the skin of his teeth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/mitt-romney-taxes-tough-sell-hairball_n_1681636.html
WASHINGTON -- Months after he mathematically locked up the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney remains a political hairball that GOP insiders -- conservative and otherwise -- wish they could cough up before the convention in Tampa, Fla., next month.
The likelihood of their doing so is slim to none, party sources said. But that doesn't mean that they are happy to have Mitt atop the ticket.
That is the real, unspoken political meaning behind he remarkable, rising chorus of voices calling on the presumptive party nominee to release more of his federal tax returns to the public.
"The fact is, no one likes the guy or believes in him," said the campaign manager for a former Romney rival, who declined to be quoted by name because his former boss is on record supporting Romney's campaign against incumbent President Barack Obama.
"Look back at our 2008 primaries," he said. "Who did all the other candidates dislike? Romney. Look at this year. Who did all the other candidates dislike? Romney. No one wants Obama to win, but no one likes the guy who is running against him."
Republican leaders, especially conservatives, see Romney as a malleable, cynical power-grabber without principle or compass. They warned voters that Romney would be unable to take the fight to Obama on health care because he had fostered a similar program as governor of Massachusetts, and they argued that a wealthy, well-connected son of privilege was not a good spokesman for selling free-market ideas to the middle-class.
Over the last week, a disparate array of Republican and conservative leaders have called on Romney to do what he is clearly loathe to do: release several years if not a decade or more of his federal tax returns. it is an unspoken form of payback.
The list is not only a veritable who's who of the party, but a not-so-subtle roster of people who opposed Romney for the presidential nomination. That they have not fallen in line behind Romney's stonewalling is a telling sign.
Among those who have called on Romney to disclose are figures tied to the candidates who opposed Romney in the Republican primaries, and who are clearly not willing to do him any favors now. They include Rick Tyler, a close and longtime advisor to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; John Weaver, who served in a similar capacity in the campaign of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman; former GOP candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas; Gov. Rick Perry of Texas (who said that ALL candidates should disclose their returns); and conservative pundit William Kristol, who is close to former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, among other former candidates.
Normally, defeated primary rivals quickly fall in line behind the strategy and message of the winning candidate. In this crucial case, Romney's former rivals have done just the opposite on what Romney has made clear is a crucial issue.
Equally noteworthy are the party leaders and pundits who have left the Romney Alamo. They include former party chairs Haley Barbour and Michael Steele, and pundits George Will, David Frum, the editors of National Review and, to a degree, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
As if to add insult to injury, the GOP's 2008 standard-bearer, Sen. John McCain, said on Tuesday that he had picked former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate because she was the best candidate for the job -- a sock to the jaw to Romney, who had been on McCain's veep list.
Even before the tax return issue had come to dominate the campaign, News Corp. boss Rupert Murdoch had complained about what he regarded as the ineptitude and lack of focus of the Romney team.
And Congressional Republicans were upset with Romney's insistence that his health care plan in Massachusetts was based on "penalties," not taxes. The GOP wants to run against the president on the notion that his version of health care -- similar to Romney's -- is a "massive tax increase." Mitt muddled the message.
"Romney threw them under the bus and they aren't going to stand for it," said Hogan Gidley, media director for Santorum's campaign. "The idea that Obama health care is a tax increase is a key to the whole Republican campaign."
Seen as arrogant and aloof by his rivals, Romney is said to have few friends or ties among his former challengers or elsewhere in the GOP and conservative ranks. He has money and a tight and loyal cadre of operatives, but they find themselves without many allies as they try to argue that their boss should be allowed to keep his business dealings and taxes private.
"There are those of us who think that Romney is destined to lose, and they are behaving accordingly," said the former manager of another campaign, who also declined to be quoted because his boss has endorsed Romney.
"Everybody's looking ahead to the next round. They won't say it, but they are."
WASHINGTON -- Months after he mathematically locked up the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney remains a political hairball that GOP insiders -- conservative and otherwise -- wish they could cough up before the convention in Tampa, Fla., next month.
The likelihood of their doing so is slim to none, party sources said. But that doesn't mean that they are happy to have Mitt atop the ticket.
That is the real, unspoken political meaning behind he remarkable, rising chorus of voices calling on the presumptive party nominee to release more of his federal tax returns to the public.
"The fact is, no one likes the guy or believes in him," said the campaign manager for a former Romney rival, who declined to be quoted by name because his former boss is on record supporting Romney's campaign against incumbent President Barack Obama.
"Look back at our 2008 primaries," he said. "Who did all the other candidates dislike? Romney. Look at this year. Who did all the other candidates dislike? Romney. No one wants Obama to win, but no one likes the guy who is running against him."
Republican leaders, especially conservatives, see Romney as a malleable, cynical power-grabber without principle or compass. They warned voters that Romney would be unable to take the fight to Obama on health care because he had fostered a similar program as governor of Massachusetts, and they argued that a wealthy, well-connected son of privilege was not a good spokesman for selling free-market ideas to the middle-class.
Over the last week, a disparate array of Republican and conservative leaders have called on Romney to do what he is clearly loathe to do: release several years if not a decade or more of his federal tax returns. it is an unspoken form of payback.
The list is not only a veritable who's who of the party, but a not-so-subtle roster of people who opposed Romney for the presidential nomination. That they have not fallen in line behind Romney's stonewalling is a telling sign.
Among those who have called on Romney to disclose are figures tied to the candidates who opposed Romney in the Republican primaries, and who are clearly not willing to do him any favors now. They include Rick Tyler, a close and longtime advisor to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; John Weaver, who served in a similar capacity in the campaign of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman; former GOP candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas; Gov. Rick Perry of Texas (who said that ALL candidates should disclose their returns); and conservative pundit William Kristol, who is close to former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, among other former candidates.
Normally, defeated primary rivals quickly fall in line behind the strategy and message of the winning candidate. In this crucial case, Romney's former rivals have done just the opposite on what Romney has made clear is a crucial issue.
Equally noteworthy are the party leaders and pundits who have left the Romney Alamo. They include former party chairs Haley Barbour and Michael Steele, and pundits George Will, David Frum, the editors of National Review and, to a degree, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
As if to add insult to injury, the GOP's 2008 standard-bearer, Sen. John McCain, said on Tuesday that he had picked former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate because she was the best candidate for the job -- a sock to the jaw to Romney, who had been on McCain's veep list.
Even before the tax return issue had come to dominate the campaign, News Corp. boss Rupert Murdoch had complained about what he regarded as the ineptitude and lack of focus of the Romney team.
And Congressional Republicans were upset with Romney's insistence that his health care plan in Massachusetts was based on "penalties," not taxes. The GOP wants to run against the president on the notion that his version of health care -- similar to Romney's -- is a "massive tax increase." Mitt muddled the message.
"Romney threw them under the bus and they aren't going to stand for it," said Hogan Gidley, media director for Santorum's campaign. "The idea that Obama health care is a tax increase is a key to the whole Republican campaign."
Seen as arrogant and aloof by his rivals, Romney is said to have few friends or ties among his former challengers or elsewhere in the GOP and conservative ranks. He has money and a tight and loyal cadre of operatives, but they find themselves without many allies as they try to argue that their boss should be allowed to keep his business dealings and taxes private.
"There are those of us who think that Romney is destined to lose, and they are behaving accordingly," said the former manager of another campaign, who also declined to be quoted because his boss has endorsed Romney.
"Everybody's looking ahead to the next round. They won't say it, but they are."
nothing like republicans eating their own...
This could either mean they run another nutter in 2016 or a reasonable centrist (which Romney sort of is already
)So why do they have a problem with him?
Tennessee Tea Partiers To GOP Gov: Stop Employing Muslims, Gays, Democrats!
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/tennessee_tea_party_bill_haslam.php?ref=fpa
Conservatives and Tea Party activists in Tennessee have recently pushed several Republican Party county organizations to pass resolutions criticizing the state’s Republican governor for, among other things, employing Muslims, gay people, and Democrats.
“The action or actions of the Republican elected Governor of the Great State of Tennessee and his administration have demonstrated a consistent lack of conservative values,” a resolution passed by the Stewart County Republican Party reads in part, according to a copy obtained by The Tennessean. (The Tennessean obtained two of the resolutions.)
Three county party chairman — from Stewart County, Williamson County, and Humphreys County — confirmed to TPM that the resolutions had passed. Kyle Mallory, chairman of the Stewart County GOP, said that, all together, nine counties have passed related, though not identical, resolutions. (One county chairman is apparently holding the resolution for revision.) The resolutions, according to Mallory, address concerns ranging from the governor’s appointment process to “other conservative issues within the executive branch here in Tennessee.”
“Each county has done their own thing,” Mallory said.
The state party, meanwhile, considers the resolutions distractions involving only a minority of the state’s 95 counties.
“We stand behind our governor, Gov. Bill Haslam, 100 percent,” state Republican Party Chairman Chris Devaney told TPM. “We do think, while the county parties are certainly free to pass such resolutions, that they’re distracting during an election year.”
Samar Ali/image via law.vanderbilt.eduAt least two of the resolutions, from Stewart County and Williamson County, oppose the Haslam administration’s recent appointment of Samar Ali, 30, as international director at the state’s Department of Economic and Community Development (ECD). Ali, a lawyer and a 2010-2011 White House fellow, received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, where she was the first Arab-Muslim student body president. In an emailed statement, Clint Brewer, assistant commissioner for communications for ECD, called Ali “one of the brightest leaders of her generation from this state.”
“Her extensive work experience in international business makes her eminently qualified to serve the people of the Volunteer State,” Brewer said. “We have absolutely no plans to dismiss her. On the contrary, we are proud of her hire and lucky to have her as part of our team.”
The county GOP resolutions denounce Ali as an expert in “Sharia compliant finance.”
“Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam has elevated and/or afford [sic] preferential political status to Sharia adherents in Tennessee, thereby aiding and abetting the advancement of an ideology and doctrine which is wholly incompatible with the Constitution of the United States and the Tennessee Constitution,” the Williamson resolution, dated July 10, 2012, states.
The Stewart County resolution, meanwhile, lists several grievances against Haslam beside Ali’s appointment. The document faults the governor for retaining state employees hired under former Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen; for retaining gay people who work in the Department of Children’s Services, and allowing them “to make policy decisions”; and for refusing to sign legislation opposing Agenda 21, a non-binding UN plan concerning sustainable development that is the subject of numerous fringe conspiracy theories.
The Stewart resolution calls on the Tennessee Republican Executive Committee to “take meaningful action” against Haslam. County resolutions don’t have much teeth when it comes to the state party. And, in any case, while the chairman of the state party didn’t dismiss the debate entirely, he said he supports the governor’s hiring practices.
Mallory, the Stewart County chairman, told TPM the core complaint from conservatives involved with the resolutions concerns the appointment process, and the number of state employees and appointees held over from the Bredesen era.
“You have a gay rights organization, and an immigration organization defending a Republican governor. How crazy is that? Maybe not crazy — how unusual is that?” Mallory said. “Personally, I want Gov. Haslam to be successful. And I want Gov. Haslam to fire some liberal Democrats and replace them with conservative Republicans. That’s what I would like to see.”
Mallory said the resolutions had been spurred by conversations between conservatives on Facebook. He also said that the issue was born last year, after “14 to 16 [county] chairs” wrote a letter to Haslam asking, “when are you going to start getting rid of a lot of these liberals and hiring some conservatives?”
“We got no response, not even a ‘we got your letter,’ nothing,” he said. “That kind of set several of us off.”
But when asked about the more explosive complaints included in his group’s recent resolution, Mallory hedged. Asked about Ali, for instance, Mallory said he was more bothered by her ties to the Obama administration than her religion. And pressed about the opposition to gay employees at the Department of Children’s Services, Mallory said he would have to think it over before he could offer a comment.
“I’m going to hold off comment on that one,” he said. “I don’t know how to respond appropriately to that one.”
Kevin Kookogey, chairman of the Williamson County Republicans, was more forthright. (In Kookogey’s view, the counties all agree on the Shariah issue.)
“To date, the Haslam Administration has displayed an unfortunate ignorance to the threat of Shariah,” Kookogey said in an email to TPM. “They seem willing to accept the claims and defense of the Muslim Brotherhood at face value, refusing to even consider that, perhaps, those bent on destroying Western Civilization might just be infiltrating our institutions. … It is not like this has never happened before. The Muslim Brotherhood is following the blueprint of the Communists, who infiltrated the highest levels of government and society in the 1950’s. Shariah, however, is an even greater threat, because it has cloaked itself under the auspices of a religion, thus confusing the uninformed.”
Asked about Ali, Devaney, the state party chair, said the opposition to her appointment was the product of “misinformation,” and he defended her as “the most qualified person” to fill the role she was picked for.
“There’s a lot of misinformation out there,” Devaney said. “What we’re trying to do is educate folks about the specifics. … Samar Ali is a lady who grew up in a small town called Waverly, Tennessee, and was a member of 4-H when she was in high school. We’re not talking about a radical Islamist.”
When it comes to hiring more generally, Devaney said that Haslam has followed preset guidelines, and added that “it’s not something that somebody can just go in and start firing people to hire Republicans.”
“Quite frankly, [and] this is not specifically pointed at anybody, but it might be just the fact that certain people are disgruntled that they were passed over because they weren’t hired by the government,” Devaney said.
At least one of the resolutions is the subject of a dispute. A spokesman for the Carroll County Republican Party told TPM that Chairman Nina Smothers is “holding” the resolution that passed for revision. He said the current version is not “productive,” and that Smothers wants to “revise and tone it down.”
“I will say that I am not in total agreement with [the] resolution and neither is Nina,” Russell Bush said in an email. “I was not at the meeting the night it was adopted. … [A]t said meeting the resolution was railroaded through from local Tea party members at the meeting.”
According to Bush, Carroll County Republicans don’t agree with all of Haslam’s decisions, “but we should be fighting the Dems and not each other.”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/tennessee_tea_party_bill_haslam.php?ref=fpa
Conservatives and Tea Party activists in Tennessee have recently pushed several Republican Party county organizations to pass resolutions criticizing the state’s Republican governor for, among other things, employing Muslims, gay people, and Democrats.
“The action or actions of the Republican elected Governor of the Great State of Tennessee and his administration have demonstrated a consistent lack of conservative values,” a resolution passed by the Stewart County Republican Party reads in part, according to a copy obtained by The Tennessean. (The Tennessean obtained two of the resolutions.)
Three county party chairman — from Stewart County, Williamson County, and Humphreys County — confirmed to TPM that the resolutions had passed. Kyle Mallory, chairman of the Stewart County GOP, said that, all together, nine counties have passed related, though not identical, resolutions. (One county chairman is apparently holding the resolution for revision.) The resolutions, according to Mallory, address concerns ranging from the governor’s appointment process to “other conservative issues within the executive branch here in Tennessee.”
“Each county has done their own thing,” Mallory said.
The state party, meanwhile, considers the resolutions distractions involving only a minority of the state’s 95 counties.
“We stand behind our governor, Gov. Bill Haslam, 100 percent,” state Republican Party Chairman Chris Devaney told TPM. “We do think, while the county parties are certainly free to pass such resolutions, that they’re distracting during an election year.”
Samar Ali/image via law.vanderbilt.eduAt least two of the resolutions, from Stewart County and Williamson County, oppose the Haslam administration’s recent appointment of Samar Ali, 30, as international director at the state’s Department of Economic and Community Development (ECD). Ali, a lawyer and a 2010-2011 White House fellow, received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, where she was the first Arab-Muslim student body president. In an emailed statement, Clint Brewer, assistant commissioner for communications for ECD, called Ali “one of the brightest leaders of her generation from this state.”
“Her extensive work experience in international business makes her eminently qualified to serve the people of the Volunteer State,” Brewer said. “We have absolutely no plans to dismiss her. On the contrary, we are proud of her hire and lucky to have her as part of our team.”
The county GOP resolutions denounce Ali as an expert in “Sharia compliant finance.”
“Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam has elevated and/or afford [sic] preferential political status to Sharia adherents in Tennessee, thereby aiding and abetting the advancement of an ideology and doctrine which is wholly incompatible with the Constitution of the United States and the Tennessee Constitution,” the Williamson resolution, dated July 10, 2012, states.
The Stewart County resolution, meanwhile, lists several grievances against Haslam beside Ali’s appointment. The document faults the governor for retaining state employees hired under former Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen; for retaining gay people who work in the Department of Children’s Services, and allowing them “to make policy decisions”; and for refusing to sign legislation opposing Agenda 21, a non-binding UN plan concerning sustainable development that is the subject of numerous fringe conspiracy theories.
The Stewart resolution calls on the Tennessee Republican Executive Committee to “take meaningful action” against Haslam. County resolutions don’t have much teeth when it comes to the state party. And, in any case, while the chairman of the state party didn’t dismiss the debate entirely, he said he supports the governor’s hiring practices.
Mallory, the Stewart County chairman, told TPM the core complaint from conservatives involved with the resolutions concerns the appointment process, and the number of state employees and appointees held over from the Bredesen era.
“You have a gay rights organization, and an immigration organization defending a Republican governor. How crazy is that? Maybe not crazy — how unusual is that?” Mallory said. “Personally, I want Gov. Haslam to be successful. And I want Gov. Haslam to fire some liberal Democrats and replace them with conservative Republicans. That’s what I would like to see.”
Mallory said the resolutions had been spurred by conversations between conservatives on Facebook. He also said that the issue was born last year, after “14 to 16 [county] chairs” wrote a letter to Haslam asking, “when are you going to start getting rid of a lot of these liberals and hiring some conservatives?”
“We got no response, not even a ‘we got your letter,’ nothing,” he said. “That kind of set several of us off.”
But when asked about the more explosive complaints included in his group’s recent resolution, Mallory hedged. Asked about Ali, for instance, Mallory said he was more bothered by her ties to the Obama administration than her religion. And pressed about the opposition to gay employees at the Department of Children’s Services, Mallory said he would have to think it over before he could offer a comment.
“I’m going to hold off comment on that one,” he said. “I don’t know how to respond appropriately to that one.”
Kevin Kookogey, chairman of the Williamson County Republicans, was more forthright. (In Kookogey’s view, the counties all agree on the Shariah issue.)
“To date, the Haslam Administration has displayed an unfortunate ignorance to the threat of Shariah,” Kookogey said in an email to TPM. “They seem willing to accept the claims and defense of the Muslim Brotherhood at face value, refusing to even consider that, perhaps, those bent on destroying Western Civilization might just be infiltrating our institutions. … It is not like this has never happened before. The Muslim Brotherhood is following the blueprint of the Communists, who infiltrated the highest levels of government and society in the 1950’s. Shariah, however, is an even greater threat, because it has cloaked itself under the auspices of a religion, thus confusing the uninformed.”
Asked about Ali, Devaney, the state party chair, said the opposition to her appointment was the product of “misinformation,” and he defended her as “the most qualified person” to fill the role she was picked for.
“There’s a lot of misinformation out there,” Devaney said. “What we’re trying to do is educate folks about the specifics. … Samar Ali is a lady who grew up in a small town called Waverly, Tennessee, and was a member of 4-H when she was in high school. We’re not talking about a radical Islamist.”
When it comes to hiring more generally, Devaney said that Haslam has followed preset guidelines, and added that “it’s not something that somebody can just go in and start firing people to hire Republicans.”
“Quite frankly, [and] this is not specifically pointed at anybody, but it might be just the fact that certain people are disgruntled that they were passed over because they weren’t hired by the government,” Devaney said.
At least one of the resolutions is the subject of a dispute. A spokesman for the Carroll County Republican Party told TPM that Chairman Nina Smothers is “holding” the resolution that passed for revision. He said the current version is not “productive,” and that Smothers wants to “revise and tone it down.”
“I will say that I am not in total agreement with [the] resolution and neither is Nina,” Russell Bush said in an email. “I was not at the meeting the night it was adopted. … [A]t said meeting the resolution was railroaded through from local Tea party members at the meeting.”
According to Bush, Carroll County Republicans don’t agree with all of Haslam’s decisions, “but we should be fighting the Dems and not each other.”
Anti-incumbent or apathy in the global economic situation? Of course there was a lot of hope invested in Obama and he hardly wanted to lessen any of it, however gains for those supporters have been limited or drawn out.
Romney smiles worse than Gordon Brown [the voters aren't looking to buy a used car from a snake] and carries too much baggage within his own party to be assured. He can attack the record of the incumbent but what is there of his own message for people to believe, his personal vision with some broad appeal? Romney will need an unlikely amount of complacency/disinterest among the democratic vote to succeed IMO.
- Status