Bob Cesca has a great post up about the right-wing politicians and pundits, and their relation to Las Vegas shootings and the Atlanta courthouse shooting.
Did they really believe they could talk like this for so long and at such an urgent fever-pitch, encouraging armed revolution and Second Amendment solutions, and believe that no one would act upon the nonstop join-or-die hype? It’s not just Alex Jones, either. We’re also told by our elected leaders — those we’ve tasked with passing laws and safeguarding our liberty — that we should take up arms against domestic enemies.
To judge by their scramble to paint the shooters as “socialists” and to point the finger anywhere else but at themselves, the answer is “Yes, yes they did believe that.”
There was an op-ed this weekend from the authors of the GOP’s “Growth and Opportunity Project” which amounted to a large amount of text patting themselves (and the Party) over it after a year. “It’s going so well!” is the general gist.
While the report provided recommendations on what the party at large needed to do, we’re pleased to see that the RNC has made tremendous progress on many of our recommendations in the course of the past year. Likewise, many of the other party committees and outside groups have also embraced aspects of the report and should be commended for their progress.
Which would be nice, except for a little problem. None of the policy recommendations in that report have been acted upon, in fact, mostly put into the dumpster.
Early last year, I discussed the Republican Party’s “Growth and Opportunity Project,” and spent some time on their recognition that they needed to reach out to women voters. They were, and still are, very upset that the Democratic Party was able to paint them as conducting “a war on women.”
5. Republicans should develop a more aggressive response to Democrat rhetoric regarding a so-called “war on women.” In 2012, the Republican response to this attack was muddled, and too often the attack went undefended altogether. We need to actively combat this, better prepare our surrogates, and not stand idly by while the Democrats pigeonhole us using false attacks. There are plenty of liberal policies that negatively impact women, and it is incumbent upon the party to expose those and relentlessly attack Democrats using that framework.
They’ve been doing that, and in the past month have been vigorously conducting aggressive responses explaining how liberal policies negatively impact women, and then explaining the Republican position.
I have a genetic disability. It’s nothing that generally impacts my life, although it has kept me out of certain fields. I have deuteranomaly. What’s that? It’s a form of color blindness. I really can’t see the color green. I also have some issues with faint shades of red, or mixed shades. What the majority of people in this country see as “green,” I’ll see as brown, tan, or gray, depending on the shade of green it is. It’s sometimes embarrassing when people point out that I just called something “gray” which is obviously green (to them), but outside of that, I manage to get along. So what does that have to do with conservatives? They have a different sort of disability.
Back in the early days of this blog, I defined my stance as a pragmatic liberal:
I’m a pragmatic liberal and a realist. What that means is that I will always go with “what works” over an impractical solution, or take what is achievable for now versus doing without anything in the vague hope that “the perfect” will somehow happen. I recognize that “all or nothing” often means nothing, and that if nothing hurts a lot more people than something, I’ll take the something – every time.
One of the things I’ve noted is that purists tend to be quite willing to propose impractical solutions, or accept nothing at all, if it means “not perfect” is the alternative according to their lights.