Less than five months ago, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal argued that the Republican party had gotten away from its supposed core principles: “limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility.”  He promised, “on behalf of our leaders in Congress and [his] fellow Republican governors” that “our party is determined to regain your trust.”

How’s that been working out?  There are just 22 Republican governors nationwide: in the past two weeks, two of those 22, Sanford and Palin, demonstrated an utter failure of personal responsibility (in very different ways, of course–Palin didn’t have an affair, she merely walked away from the oath she swore when taking office as governor).  Senator Ensign, who held a top leadership post in the Republican caucus, also recently demonstrated his failings on the personal responsibility front.  All three were considered possible presidential contenders in 2012 (Bill Kristol is performing rhetorical gymnastics in an effort to argue that Palin is somehow still in the mix and Palin’s photo is still prominently featured on the Republican Governors Association website atop the declaration that “the GOP comeback begins now”).

So far, Jindal’s pledge on behalf of his fellow Republicans doesn’t seem to be working out very well.  In less than five months, Jindal’s fellow Republican governors are failing the personal responsibility test at nearly a 10% rate.  A top Senate leader has failed as well.  Does the party get another do-over?

The truth is that Republican slogans about their devotion to limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility have been empty claims for the past 30 years.  Republican presidents left Democrats huge deficits.  The only time we have seen a balanced budget in recent years was under a Democratic president.  Republican claims of limited government were undermined by the party’s position on abortion and LGBT rights, as well as the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance, torture of detainees and other excesses of executive power (some of which, unfortunately, are being continued by Obama).  Recent events make clear that Republicans have no monopoly on personal responsibility (as we learned from past trespasses as well e.g. the Gingrich, Livingston, Foley, Craig, and Vitter episodes, to name a few).

I don’t think this is a good thing.  A credible opposition party is something I’d like to see, as it would put positive pressure on Democrats to craft better policies.  The current Republican party doesn’t fit the bill.

In what an Alaska television station describes as a “stunning development”, Sarah Palin announced today that she will step down as governor in a few weeks, resigning her office with about a year and a half left in her term.  Palin didn’t exactly give a clear explanation as to why she is stepping down–she said she had decided not to run for re-election, but it’s not clear why that led her to resign now, with a year and a half left in her term.  Republican consultant Mike Murphy described her actions as setting new standards in erratic behavior.  MSNBC is reporting that other Republicans are describing the announcement she made today as “bewildering”.

We’ll have to see if there is more to come in terms of an explanation as to why Palin is stepping down.  It strikes me that this is further evidence that John McCain took an enormous gamble on behalf of the American people when he selected Palin as a running mate.  During the campaign, she demonstrated she was woefully unprepared to be first in line to succeed the president, should that be required.  Her decision today, described by Murphy as incredibly erratic, provides another reason to be thankful she and McCain were defeated last November.

People who turn Adolph Hitler into a political punchline are doing a disservice to political debate and diminishing the monstrous reality of what Hitler and the Nazis carried out: world war, murder of civillians, torture, and genocide, for starters.  Comparing anyone’s fiscal policies to the Nazi reign of terror is truly foolish, but that hasn’t stopped the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County (Maryland).  They solemnly insist that “Obama and Hitler have a great deal in common…”  Their “proof”?  Obama’s policies are “destroying…America”–just like Hitler’s blitzkrieg destroyed European cities.  (thanks to Think Progress for reporting on this).

“Blitzkreig” is German for “lightning war”.  When you use this term in connection with Adolph Hitler, you’re talking about a tactic that was used to conquer countries and slaughter civillians–a sort of “trial run” was used to destroy the Spanish town of Guernica.  Hundreds of civilians were killed.  One military expert has described what happened in Guernica this way: “For the German air force, Guernica was a trial run on how one can spread horror and distress through attacks on cities and towns…Of course the bombing of Guernica was a blatant violation of human rights and had a terrorist character.  It was accepted that civillians would be harmed.”

With Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September 1939, the concept of “blitzkreig” was cemented as a method of warfare that included indiscriminate bombing of civillian targets. The tactic was also used in the Netherlands, and in the Battle of Britain.  Thousands of civillians were killed.

There are times when comparisons work and there are times when they don’t.  Comparing Obama’s economic and health care policies to a method of warfare that killed thousands of civillians is a good example of a comparison that doesn’t work, to put it mildly and politely.

One of the oddest things about the comparison made by the Republican group in Maryland was the conclusion they reached: they urged supporters to “fight back” by “Start[ing] a blitzkreig of our own!” Huh?  Their message makes no sense–are they saying “blitzkreig” is an acceptable tactic, just not when Obama does it?  Why would someone who thinks Obama is using the same despicable blitzkreig tactic Hitler himself employed think the correct response is to start their own “blitzkreig”?  The group did make clear that the “blitzkreig” they envision involves contacting members of Congress, but this is not a term one uses lightly, especially after you’ve just gotten through arguing that Obama is like Hitler because he uses the blitzkreig method to overwhelm his “enemies” (Another very poor word choice by the Republican group, by the way.  Supporters of Obama and critics of Obama are not “enemies”, and they’re certainly not “enemies” in the sense that Hitler had enemies).

Five years ago,  then RNC chair Ed Gillespie said it was “despicable” to compare Bush with Hitler.  He’s right–and I hope he, as well as Sean Hannity and John Gibson of Fox News (who also fumed about comparisons between Bush and Hitler) will call out Republicans and rightwingers (the Maryland group is far from the only example) who mindlessly compare Obama with Hitler.

As I’ve noted, the Republican party has some work to do if it wants to erase the stain that racism has left on the party, including, but not limited to the series of racist comments Republican elected officials, staffers, and activists have directed at President Obama and his wife over the past year.  I’m still waiting to see if Republican leaders will take this on, but some people would like to see the party embrace the politics of division.

Pat Buchanan’s group, The American Cause, held a conference last weekend that provided guidance for conservatives and Republicans looking to build “a new majority.”  (Thanks to Think Progress for reporting on this).  During a panel discussion, some panelists suggested backing English-only initiatives as a way to build support among working-class Democrats (who, according to the panelists, must care more about linguistic primacy than they do about paying their mortgages).   The proposal did include some unintended comic relief–a banner hanging over the panelists misspelled the English word “conference”.

Scapegoating minority groups during a time of economic crisis is an old, tired tactic that should be relegated to the dustbin of history.  This is an appeal that depends on ugly racial divisiveness.  One of Buchanan’s panelists, Peter Brimelow, describes himself as a “white nationalist” and has suggested the Republican party “must appeal to its base: “white Americans.”

One question I have is: why is Pat Buchanan able to market himself as a mainstream commentator, appearing regularly on cable TV shows like Hardball and Morning Joe?  He has immersed himself in the ugly politics of scapegoating minority groups.  It might be nice if, at the least, Chris Matthews or Joe Scarborough asked him about this some time.

On the plus side, I don’t think these scare tactics (panelists suggested that Obama could force Americans to speak Spanish) will actually build the new majority Buchanan promises.  That doesn’t mean scapegoating can be ignored.  For one thing, the politics of scapegoating minority groups can be dangerous.

The Republican party is faced with a choice.  Is it a party that believes scapegoating minority groups is the way to political re-birth, or is it a party that will denounce the ugly message on display at The American Cause’s conference?  Speakers at the conference included two former Republican congressmen (Tom Tancredo and John Hostettler), former Republican secretary of state from Ohio (Ken Blackwell), Newt Gingrich’s former press secretary Tony Blankley, and Buchanan himself, a former Republican presidential candidate.  Will anyone in the party make clear that they denounce the politics of scapegoating spread by these prominent Republicans?

As Cosanostradamus pointed out in a comment, politicians and pundits have, so far, generally been silent when it comes to responding to the pattern of Republican elected officials, staffers, and activists making racist comments about President Obama and his wife.  I was glad to see Kathleen Parker break some of the silence in today’s Washington Post.  Parker lives in South Carolina and her piece mainly focused on the question of whether that state can put an end to “race-based politics”–  her piece is entitled “A Stain to Erase in South Carolina.”

The focus ought to be on the Republican party itself, not just one state.  At the end of her piece, Parker finally notes that “If Republicans ever want to see the Oval Office again, they’ll have to purge their tent of this foul air.”  That’s the real point–not that there’s a stain to erase in South Carolina, but that there’s a stain to erase in the Republican party–a stain we’re reminded of by the racist comments about Obama, but also a racial stain that goes back to Richard Nixon’s southern strategy, Ronald Reagan’s Philadelphia, MS speech about state’s rights, the 1988 Willie Horton ad, and decades of racial code words used for political gain.    It’s past time for Republican leaders to respond to the string of racist comments spewing forth from their party, and it’s past time for them to address the stain that decades of racial politics has left on their party.

I love Bob Herbert and I’m glad he wrote this piece about what he refers to as “right-wing, hate driven attacks”, including the murder of Dr. Tiller, the murder at the Holocaust Museum, and the murder of three police officers in Pittsburgh.  I think he’s absolutely right to note that the NRA, and others on the right wing, are “spray[ing] gasoline” into an explosive environment when they spread the myth that Obama is trying to take away everyone’s guns.

I’m not a gun owner and I think we need a rational approach to the epidemic of gun violence that has plagued the nation for years (not just talking about the recent murders).  However, given that the NRA has been providing a justification for people like James von Brunn, the alleged killer at the Holocaust Museum, and Richard Poplawski, charged with killing three police officers in Pittsburgh, is Herbert right to conclude that, the first step we need to take in responding to these murders is “to bring additional gun control into the policy mix”?  My concern is that this plays into the NRA’s hands.  There’s still no evidence that, as Poplawski and von Brunn feared, Obama is planning to institute a massive gun ban–but why give the NRA any basis, however thin, for claiming that there is some plot to take away guns?

As I have said before, I’d like to see (a) an effective law enforcement response to the threat of violence posed by right-wing extremists.  That doesn’t mean an unconstitutional crackdown on civil liberties, but it certainly means taking the Department of Homeland Security’s report on this threat seriously and (b) calling on responsible Republican leaders to make clear that irresponsible rhetoric, such as that used by the NRA, is way over the line.

This isn’t unprecedented.  In the mid-1990s, the NRA was using similarly over the top rhetoric, claiming that “jack booted government thugs” were threatening to break down peoples’ doors and seize their guns.  The first President Bush responded by resigning from the NRA, rightly calling the organization out for its irresponsible scare tactics.

With the NRA once again using irresponsible rhetoric to scare people into thinking President Obama is coming to get their guns (it has set up a website called gunbunobama.com) we need a Republican leader like President Bush the elder to call them out, once again.

The 2008 Republican party platform includes a section on “preserving traditional marriage“.  The platform brags that “Republicans have been in the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws”.

With news of Sen. Ensign’s extramarital affair (including reports that the woman involved in the affair, and her son, were paid by Ensign or the NRSC, which he headed up), I’ve been wondering if the Republicans have reached “hypocritical mass” yet on the question of whether they are really “defending marriage”.  With Ensign, we now know there are seven of 40 Republican senators who have either had extramarital affairs (Ensign, Vitter–he of diaper fame) or have been divorced: McCain, Barrasso, Bond, Hutchison, and McConnell.

That’s almost a 20% threshold.  Can a party that claims to be defending marriage really be satisfied with a personal success rate of just over 80%?

Republican hypocrisy when it comes to the “defense of marriage” isn’t limited to current senators.  Of course, we all remember Larry Craig, who recently left the Senate.  Republicans in the House had two consecutive speakers who engaged in extramarital affairs (Gingrich and Livingston).

I truly don’t care what people do in their personal lives, as long as they’re not breaking the law.  The reason I’m writing about this is because it exposes the Republican party’s hypocrisy on the question of marriage.  There’s an easy way for Republicans to make this issue go away: they can stop sanctimoniously insisting that they are protecting marriage by denying equality to gay and lesbian couples.  Aren’t they getting embarrassed at this point?

As I’ve mentioned, a staffer for a Republican state senator from Tennessee sent an email depicting the President of the United States as a “spook“.  I’ve been asking when Republican leaders will denounce this and other racist slurs that Republicans have directed at President Obama and his wife over the past year.  It looks like there’s little chance of that happening–in fact, the staffer who sent the racist email won’t even lose her job.  She did receive a “strongly worded reprimand.”

Well, that ought to reassure those of us who thought it was obviously out of bounds to smear the President with racist slurs.  Maybe the next time a Republican elected official, staffer or activist directs a racist slur at the President or his wife (and, based on the frequency of these slurs, it’s a safe bet to say it’s only a matter of time), they’ll be sent to bed without dinner.

In 2008, 5% of African-American men and 3% of African-American women voted for the Republican presidential candidate.  This wasn’t simply an aberration related to the fact that the Democratic candidate was himself African-American: Bush received just over 10% of the African-American vote in 2004.  If the Republicans are serious about reaching out to African-American voters, they’ll have to start by making clear that they understand it’s wildly inappropriate (to put it mildly) to direct racist slurs at the President of the United States (or anyone, for that matter).  Based on the way the party has responded, or failed to respond, to the spate of racist slurs directed by Republicans at President Obama, it’s fair to say that the Republican party isn’t quite there yet.

Yesterday, I asked if Republican leaders would speak out against the growing number of racist comments directed against President Obama and his wife.  I don’t think any leaders have done so yet, but I am glad to see that a former Cheney staffer, Ron Christie, denounced a racist email sent by the staffer of a Republican state senator in Tennessee.  Christie forthrightly called the email what it was: racism, and he rightly called for the staffer to be fired.

Well done, Mr. Christie.  No offense at all, as I’m a no-name myself, but what will it take for someone in the Republican party that we’ve actually heard of to follow Christie’s example and display the integrity to denounce this, as well as other racist slurs, directed at the President (as well as one directed at his wife)?  As I noted yesterday, the email by the state senate staffer isn’t unique–it’s part of a pattern of racist comments by Republican activists and office holders going back over the past year.

By the way, as long as I’m mentioning yesterday’s post, I want to thank commenter Cosanostradamus for awarding the Seminal a coveted “Cosie” award for June 2009, and citing my post from yesterday in making the award.  Many thanks, Cosanostradamus—and if I could figure out how to display an image of the trophy, I would!

I know the traditional media has its hands full providing exhaustive coverage of the David Letterman-Sarah Palin saga, but when they get a minute, maybe they can look into the racist and bizarre comments Republican activists are directing at President Obama and his wife.  As I mentioned the other day, a Republican activist in South Carolina just compared Michelle Obama to a gorilla.  Not to be outdone, today, another Republican activist in SC posted this gem on Twitter: “Just heard Obama is going to impose a 40% tax on aspirin because it’s white and it works.“  Funny stuff–but wait, there’s more.  A Republican staffer for a Tennessee state senator emailed a block of paintings and photographs of U.S. presidents.  The white presidents were shown in their actual likenesses–Obama was depicted as a disembodied cartoon set of eyes–get it?–he’s a “spook“.

It’s all comedy gold, I grant you, but once we all wipe the tears of mirth off our faces, maybe we can ask a coupld of questions: (1) why is the nearly all-white Republican party (I don’t believe there’s been an African-American member of Congress since J.C. Watts retired in 2002, unless I’m forgetting someone) a home for racists?  and (2) when will national Republican leaders denounce this series of racist attacks against the President of the United States?

I should also note that it’s not like these racist comments are something new.  When Obama was running for president, a Republican congressman referred to the 47 year old Obama by using the derogatory term “boy“.  A Republican newsletter in California showed candidate Obama surrounded by fried chicken, watermelon, and food stamps.

I’ll keep waiting for responsible Republicans to denounce all this as the blatant racism it is.  I’ll also keep watching–I’m sure there will be more to come.