Making a smaller GOP

I think you mean to say that, post-purge, the next Republican National Convention could be held in a men’s room stall, with room to spare — assuming no-one assumes a wide stance, of course.

Let these polarizing idiots dry hump each other to heaven -and hopefully out of politics– I’m all for it!

No member of the Republican Party in the 1860s could represent his party and be a slaveholder at the same time.

We support freedom. Except when we don’t.

I hope Craig is what pushes these schmucks over the edge. Let them reject every candidate that doesn’t meet their Purity Profile. Let them try to drive out plain old Republican voters who look at women’s ankles.

Let’s face it, the GOP, like Craig, is merrily skipping down a road that means political extinction. I don’t like the idea of a single functioning political party. I don’t think two is enough. But the GOP has become so inbred that all it can do is shriek about Terror! and Values! with pauses only to futher fuck up the economy. Maybe this will create some breathing space for a third party. The GOP can become party of lunatics that can’t do any harm and so, are rather amusing.

tAiO

Also LOLing at T Paine.

I, too, heartily endorse the IVA’s recommendations about purging the Republican Party.

Now. What will we call the new party that will be formed of the “homosexuals, divorced, adulterers, abortion recipients, gamblers,” but who also represent the interests of the wealthy and of big business?

How about, the Free Love/Free Market Party?

The Idaho Values Alliance seems to be under the impression that the Republican Party is a religion, and the more of this confusion we see, the worse it’s going to get for the fortunes of the GOP.

If there has to be such an emphasis on morality, I would prefer that it be related to things like health care and hunger and oppression and discrimination and the kinds of things that politics and government can change. Making it about one’s sexual orientation is small-minded and myopic when there are so many larger and more serious issues. They don’t seem to have figured out that whether a person is gay or straight is the least of what concerns us, preoccupied as most of us are with fighting to be able to afford health care, and housing, to plan for a retirement we can afford to have before we turn 90, to put our kids through college, to hang onto our jobs and be paid fairly, to be safe in our homes and streets, to know that the food we eat and the air we breathe and the drugs we take are safe, that someone remembers us, the so-called “little guys,” while the corporations are working so hard and spending money like crazy to make sure that all the advantages are theirs.

I think the deeper issue here [and one the Republicans will never understand] is that this is precisely the sort of behavior that comes from repression of normal urges. All the time and money that the Right spends trying to squash out homosexuality creates an internal culture that nurtures the notion that gay people are evil. And so, those gay people among them, after a lifetime of repressing real and normal desires, become so closeted that this is what they get. Loser hypocrites leering in airport bathrooms, texting interns, and hiring male prostitutes.

Like every other wacked out hypocrisy the conservatives cling to, this is just a matter of them all being too afraid, stupid and close-minded to see even a shard of reality.

Of course, I’m no psychiatrist.

2. On August 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm, T Paine said:
I think you mean to say that, post-purge, the next Republican National Convention could be held in a men’s room stall, with room to spare — assuming no-one assumes a wide stance, of course.

Good one!

New Campaign:
Today’s GOP: Assuming a Wide Stance in War, Peace and Peepee Play

Another Filthy Republicunt Uncovered

Submissives by day, dick-suckers by night. Thanks for helping the cause, Larry Craig. You are just what we mean when we say that conservatives are fake opposition.

Interesting how these guys had a lot less to say when it was Vitter paying for prostitutes, isn’t it? — CB

As I remember it, they also had less to say about Foley an his underage follies. But, with Foley, GOP knew, well ahead of time, that there was a potential bomb ticking — the kids had been reporting his behaviour to some of them. So they had plenty of time to figure out 10 different spins to soften the blow — childhod abuse, alcohol problem, etc. With Wide Stance, the news blew up in their faces without any prior notice; they learnt about it at the same time as the rest of te public, and weeks after the fact, as well. So they’re pissed off for being kept in the dark by the Lone Stall-ker.

Some of these same guys were also defending Foley last year and blaming Democrats for the timing of his scandal. Every supposedly strong moral stand they make seems predicated on which decision helps more in winning election. Idaho is a strong Republican state so any replacement would be better than Craig, hence the outrage over something that wouldn’t be a big deal if someone like Vitter did it.

“No member of the Republican Party in the 1860s could represent his party and be a slaveholder at the same time.”

If I remember correctly, Lincoln’s 2nd term VP Andrew Johnson was a slaveholder, and might still have been at the time of his election. (He was from Kentucky, a border state not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation.) Someone needs to check some facts.

By the way, do phone booths still exist?

A statement and a question: The sad thing is that the IVA probably believes that being gay is indeed just as bad as owning slaves. Was there literally any Republican who called for Vitter to resign?