Home > Republican > Republicans throw each other under the bus (and a few Democrats too)

Republicans throw each other under the bus (and a few Democrats too)

March 15th, 2013

under-the-bus

Washingtonpost.com:

The future of the Republican Party took some shots at its recent past on Thursday, as two top potential 2016 White  House hopefuls made a conspicuous effort to distance themselves from the past two GOP presidential nominees.

Speaking to activists at the Conservative Political Action Conference at National Harbor,  Sens. Rand Paul (Ky) and Marco Rubio (Fla) offered sharp, and only slightly veiled, critiques of Mitt Romney and John McCain, the two most recent men to carry the party standard in presidential elections.

“The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered,” Paul said. “I don’t think we need to name any names here, do we?”

Although Paul didn’t mention McCain by name, the reference was clear after McCain last week labeled Paul and other members of the new generation of conservative Republicans “wacko birds.”

Speaking to the same crowd earlier, Rubio sought to cast himself as the anti-Romney,  attacking some of Romney’s most controversial statements from the campaign, in which the former Massachusetts governor, in a surreptitiously recorded video, dismissed his chances with 47 percent of American voters because they were overly dependent on government and considered themselves victims.

“Our people have not changed,” Rubio said. “The vast majority of the American people are hard-working taxpayers who take responsibility for their families, go to work every day, they pay their mortgage on time, they volunteer in their community. This is where the vast majority of the American people are. What’s changed is the world around us.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who was a presidential candidate in 2012, joined in the attack. He said that Romney’s presidential loss says nothing about conservatism because Romney isn’t a conservative.

“The popular media narrative is that this country has shifted away from conservative ideals, as evidenced by the last two presidential elections. That’s what they say,” Perry said. “That might be true if Republicans had actually nominated conservative candidates in 2008 and 2012.”

Interesting.  The question now becomes whether or not an America that voted for Barack Obama for president is ready to turn around and vote for someone more conservative than John McCain and Mitt Romney?  Where is the disconnect?

Meanwhile, it appears that everyone is busy throwing each other under the bus, each blaming the older Republicans for being out-dated and out of touch.  Meanwhile, Ken Cuccinelli who is running for Governor of Virginia is singing a moderate song as he moves around the state.  Hopefully no one is fooled by that song.  If they are, they have been asleep for the past 4 years.  Cuccinelli is an uber-conservative.

Some Republicans are trying to open the door a little further for some groups-blacks, Latinos, gays–those people who failed to vote Republican in the last national election.  This attempt at inclusiveness seems to be very isolated.   Regardless of what is said, however, the fact remains that some very visible  local Republicans think nothing of making an issue out of ethnicity and sexual orientation.  Case in point, BVBL.net’s lead thread mimics and ridicules and labels a woman who dares to challenge incumbent Del. Bob Marshall for the 13th District.  Frankly, her sexual orientation is of no concern of mine.  What does concern me, however, is that a local member of the Republican party feels it acceptable to blast someone running for office over their orientation.  Would an issue be made if the candidate were Black?  Latino?  Muslim?   I seem to remember a jockey who looked like the president and a dog food joke.  I guess the answer to my question is yes.

Republicans are going to want to distance themselves from those within their party who continue to mock women, gays, and people of other ethnicities and religions.  As long as it is open season on “Otherness,” those groups who Republicans desperately need to win elections will simply not have anything to do with the party–at least not in the numbers needed.

What surprises will CPAC have in store for us today?  These people will set the tone.  My guess is people simply will not be able to resist further alienating gays,  people of color, and minority religions.   The circus is in town and all eyes are on center ring.

Categories: Republican Tags:
  1. March 15th, 2013 at 10:05 | #1

    Del. Bob Marshall is one of the “moss covered.”

    Senator Paul wants to make the gov’t neutral in regards to social issues like gay marriage.

  2. Starry flights
    March 15th, 2013 at 16:08 | #2

    Yeah,well, Rubio didn’t sound neutral on social issues, especially gay marriage. Rick Perry blamed republican voters for nominating real conservatives , like himself. Trump said the party leadership stinks. Romney said they will eventually, one of these days.

    Republicans are lost in space

  3. George S. Harris
    March 16th, 2013 at 08:33 | #3

    If you recall, Delegates Rich Anderson, Scott Lingamfelter (I call him Limpandfalter) and one other delegate stood up in the Virginia House of Delegates and made impassioned pleas against the appointment of now Judge Tracy Throne-Begland because they felt he had violated his oath of office as an officer of the U.S. Navy and thus could not be trusted. Anderson recanted his opinion somewhat the next time Throne-Begland was considered but I believe he still voted against his appointment.

    While I do not agree with Rubio, Paul or Perry, I sometimes think it is time for Senator McCain to hang up his hat. Her served honorably in both the Navy and Congress and should quit while he is ahead. Mitch McConnell should have been put out to pasture a long time ago–too arrogant and too far right for the Nation’s good.

    As to Sideshow Bob–how in the hell does he keep getting reelected?

    And as to Greg–he has once again dropped his trow and shown his ass.

    • March 16th, 2013 at 11:27 | #4

      Some people have the capability of showing their ass without dropping their trow.

  4. March 16th, 2013 at 11:58 | #5

    Meet Donna Sellinger tomorrow (Sunday, March 17) at 3 pm at the clubhouse at Virginia Oaks Golf Club, 7950 Virginia Oaks Dr., Gainesville.

    http://www.sellinger4delegate.com/

  5. March 16th, 2013 at 11:58 | #6

    Meet Donna Sellinger tomorrow (Sunday, March 17) at 3 pm at the clubhouse at Virginia Oaks Golf Club, 7950 Virginia Oaks Dr., Gainesville.

    http://www.sellinger4delegate.com/

  6. middleman
    March 18th, 2013 at 17:48 | #8

    Cargosquid :
    Del. Bob Marshall is one of the “moss covered.”
    Senator Paul wants to make the gov’t neutral in regards to social issues like gay marriage.

    Okay, I’ll bite- how can the government be “neutral” on gay marriage? I thought the argument was over whether or not gays are allowed to be married in the eyes of the state, which would give them all the benefits of marriage. Either the government allows gay marriage or not, right?

    • March 18th, 2013 at 17:50 | #9

      Point taken. Perhaps neutral is too neutral. What shall we substitute?

  7. March 19th, 2013 at 00:19 | #10

    @middleman
    Don’t give benefits of tax law to married people. Get the gov’t out of marriage…no more permissions needed. Find a church and have at it. That’s my interpretation. But Google is my friend so:
    U.S. senator Rand Paul of Kentucky isn’t for changing what he calls “the historical definition of marriage,” but he proposes making the tax code and benefits policies “more neutral” to assist same-sex couples and their families.

    “I am an old-fashioned traditionalist,” Paul told a group of reporters Tuesday at the office of the conservative magazine National Review in Washington, D.C. “I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults — I’m not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn’t mention the word marriage, then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is. We just don’t have marriage in the tax code.

    “If health benefits are a problem, why don’t we not define them by marriage? Why don’t we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don’t have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the southeastern part of the country, we don’t have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral.”

  8. middleman
    March 20th, 2013 at 14:38 | #11

    So the “Rand Plan” is to continue to deny civil rights to gays, but consider anyone sharing a house to be “partners” for insurance purposes? Nice plan!

    He, like the other libertarian Republicans, may be missing the point. Who is the government to deny the right to marriage and the economic and social benefits thereof to any couple who wants to be married? Isn’t this contrary to the very definition of libertarianism- to limit government to core functions? How does libertarianism (as popularized by Ayn Rand, Paul’s namesake) square with interfering with women’s rights, gay rights, etc.? Does libertarianism theory as practiced by Republicans teach that market pressure will protect civil rights?

    The Russian born Ayn Rand may not have had a lot of experience with civil rights, so her theories may not work so well in America…

Comments are closed.