“We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.”— Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in the keynote address at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in Charlotte yesterday.
I guess 'stupid' is where you go when you tried all your policies, they all failed, you have nothing to offer, and you don't feel like changing. When that happens, everything just becomes a power game & you try to win any way you can think of no matter how dumb because you figure if you throw enough on the wall, maybe some will stick. So you try...saying the other guy wasn't born here in spite of clear proof, circulating rumors he works for the enemy, refusing to cooperate with anything so you can say the other guy is unreasonable & failed to unite us, start telling out & out lies & distortions, try scaring people, try finding fault wherever & whenever your can (no matter how small & inconsequential) and try making as it as difficult as you can for people to vote. After you've tried all that, and it still didn't work, what then? Try more gerrymandering? Try redistributing electoral college districts? And when the media catches on & starts exposing that you're doing that, what then do you do? I know...turn around and start saying you've got to stop being the party of stupid. Except....you've been doing it so long, maybe that's all you really know.
The republican party is the party of ambitious parasites. They use cunning and duplicity to dominate our politics and are not at all stupid. Bobby Jindal is just another republican charlatan trying to establish himself as a credible national leader, but his basic philosophy is all about glorifying greed, with the ultimate goal of dominating the hardworking workers and the real producers of America.
Notwithstanding all the hyperbole surrounding the "wake up" call that the previous election should or must needs instill in the GOP, I would respectfully submit that Jindal's statement speaks volumes to a larger dynamic, e.g., the pendulum of power went so far to the GOP's side when W came into office, the partisan politics became so divisive, that the very tenor of GOP's dialogue was "you are either with us or against us", and books were written (seldom read by worthy eyes, perhaps) about talking to the "liberals" of the world. But when the foreseeable results of GOP policies materialized (e.g., "outsourcing" led to layoffs; "deregulation" led to Wall St. meltdown; "preemptive strikes" led to protracted occupations), the voting public began to question following the GOP when their policies seemingly contravened fiscal prudence. Ironically, the GOP push for "outsourcing" helped fuel the "entitlement" culture more than anything. The "deregulation" of credit default swaps led to a near collapse of financial institutions "too big to fail" such that the "Nanny state" had to become a partner and bail out private industry. Now then. What Jindal's comments elicit epitomizes the sentiment many others feel: show the People the results. Instead of saying "trust us to invade Iran because it is a threat", explain policy in terms of cost/benefit. If the GOP is going to be resolute on "no new taxes", it better proffer ways OTHER than cutting spending to balance the budget, i.e., restructuring debt at every level of government. The GOP needs to stop pouting and start leading.
That, sir/maa'm, is an incredibly well worded and well thought out comment. I would vote for you, were you running. Problem is, you make entirely too much sense. Brava!
@drudown good thing that we are so united now thanks to the Uniter in chief
Sadly and since the 1980's the GOP has fought hard for the rich; reduced funding to bring the poor out of their defeated cycle of less education and low earnings, increased wasteful funding for the Pentagon, support for corporations who create jobs outside the US. The GOP has been successful scaring citizens into believing that Democrats are weak. Go ahead and reap what you have sown and stop your pitiful crying.
hey it's Bobby Jindal, the republican that liberals like!
there is a slogan for 2016! great!
he's got as much chance as Christie
nice try Time
@reallife - Actually, I *do* like Christie. That doesn't mean I would vote for him and Eddie Mittster though.
Then again, Gore lost in 2000 purely because he refused to soften his stance on gun control, and many Dems seem to have already forgotten what happened in the election right after the last time they passed a so-called assault weapon ban, so this should be entertaining ("May you live in interesting times" should not be interpreted as a blessing).
@Darr247 Al Gore received half a million more votes than George Bush in 2000. And his position on assault weapons didn't design the butterfly ballot either. PS, they are "so-called" because they have no real sporting purpose other than to hunt people.
@Darr247 The Supreme Court, according to Antonin Scalia, interprets the 2nd Amendment as a right for you to own a handgun in your own home for self-protection, not an AR-15 with 20-round mag. You can look it up. If you can.
@Paul,nnto Just trying to help out; there was never any chance you'd get any empirically-based answer from that ideologue.
@Darr247 Actually the only thing that was proved is that you slept through your history classes and then got indoctrinated in paranoid, gun-nut propaganda. The well-regulated militia was to protect us from other countries' armies, not our own. The Framers never intended for us to have a standing army.
And sorry, I never bothered to click through either of your links. I know what .30-06 and .50 caliber rifles are.
@Paul,nnto - Empirical. Prima facie. Millions of people who believe in the 2nd amendment as interpreted repeatedly by the courts, absolutely would not vote for Gore just because of his hard line stance on gun control. I'll bet he never once told his SS escorts to leave their select-fire Uzi's at home.
@shepherdwong - "The .50 sniper rifle is one of the few guns that should definitely be banned."
You just proved my point... that 'rifle' is nothing but someone's fantasy, drawn for a comic book (oops - graphic novel)... you want to ban it because of what it LOOKS LIKE. The .30-06 so-called "hunting rifle" is the only one of those two that can actually kill anyone, and you can buy all the parts to make IT look just like a 'military' M16, too, without changing its functionality as a hunting rifle one iota. The 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting; the first phrase refers specifically to keeping the military under control (well regulated).
@Paul,nnto My data that Al Gore wasn't sworn in as president because of an assault weapons ban passed in 1994 is several thousand horribly designed Palm Beach County ballots (I have a copy on my wall) cast for Pat Buchanan and a partisan Supreme Court decision that the majority basically said was bu!!sh!t when they wrote it. My data for the fact that the weapons ban wasn't otherwise costly to Gore is the 543,895 more popular votes he won than Bush.
@Darr247 The .50 sniper rifle is one of the few guns that should definitely be banned. Like 20-round mags, no one needs them and they are too dangerous in the wrong hands.
@Darr247 I didn't say "military-style" but my definition of an assault-weapon is anything designed to shoot as many of something as possible in as short a time as possible, without reloading. So it's the magazine size that matters, not the size of the round.
The fact is, anyone who needs more than a bolt-action rifle with a three-round magazine to take a deer, shouldn't be allowed to walk around with gun at all. When I used to hunt I did it with a bow, the way men have been killing their meat for millennia, so there was at least some challenge to it. I'll make allowances for convenience at the range (I use a HI Power with a twelve clip bought before the first assault-weapons ban) but rifles with twenty and thirty or more round clips are for one purpose and one purpose only and civilians shouldn't have them any more than they should have RPGs.
@shepherdwong - here's another example
Which of those do you think should be banned?
@shepherdwong - there is no functional difference between an AR15 dressed up to *look like* a military M16, and a .30-06 hunting rifle, except the .30-06 rifle fires larger bullets that can do more damage than the AR15.
The .223 "assault rifle" round is #8; a .30-06 "hunting rifle" round is #15.
So, you want to ban guns by what they *look like*, not by their functionality.
Stop claiming otherwise.
"Military style" weapons are "select-fire" and ordinary civilians haven't been able to purchase select-fire weapons since the Federal Firearms Act of 1934.
Things have changed since 2000. Look at what people think about homosexuality, immigration, gun control. Now ask GOP how dangerous it is to think they can continue with the same tactics to win elections just because it worked in the past.
And to give you a great example; what did people say when Obama passed 'the dream act' through Executive order or when he said publicly that homosexuals should be able to get married?
He still won with a historically large margin.
@reallife Just because we liberals laugh when Bobby walks into the room doesn't mean we like him.
So, we say they're the party of stupid people and we're name callers. Bobby says it and he's what? A flatterer?
It's darling that Jindal thinks that the politicians set the tone/discourse for the republican party.
FNC and Rush have for many years, and will continue for many more, to establish the intellectual floor for the rightists.
"We've got to stop being the stupid party." Bobby Jindal, the man who wants schools to teach magic manism instead of science, the man who sought to increase taxes on only the poor, the man who refused to renew an anti-discrimination order against gays on the grounds that it would weaken the second amendment.
Here we go again our state shamed again by our racist uninformed governor no wonder no one wants to live in this state how heartless can any one get to go against old people, dieing and childrens someone help us we are in big trouble
> "It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.”
Why would we need two Democratic Parties?
Snark aside, the GOPers still don't get it, do they? No amount of tinkering with the presentation or twiddling with the messaging is gonna cover up the core problem. It's not just that the very vocal right wing of the Republican Party sounds stupid, it's that they act stupid and push stupid* policy.
(*not to mention unworkable, mean-spirited, and anti-social)
@grape_crushI'm afraid that what Jindal means is to stop putting up Teatard candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle and Todd Akin, who are manifestly stupid and say breathtakingly stupid things. I'm pretty sure Republicans have decided that's why they've been on a loosing streak in the Senate and White House. And, although, you characterize their policy problem as "stupid," I think you're more on the mark with the "unworkable" (for 99% of us), mean-spirited, and anti-social (for women, people of color and the poor). These policies are well thought-out and purposeful, popular with the brainwashed base, and win elections in the rural south, mid-west and west (we underestimate them at our peril). Jindal just wants them enacted quietly with the traditional Republican veneer of false goodwill.
@shepherdwong @grape_crush the rise of the teabagger movement is probably the most obvious reason (but not the only one) for the bad state the rebloodlicans (a term coined by Jesse Ventura) are in. The Democrips (another one by Jesse) just have to sit and watch until their party implodes on itself. But the question I have is when that happens (not if), what then?
"Remember that I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master;--obey!"-- Mary Shelly
> But the question I have is when that happens (not if), what then?
I don't think the GOP will implode. I think that if it stays on its current course, it just becomes more irrelevant. Come to think of it, the GOP's problem isn't just Teh Stupid, it's that the American Right's quest to move the perceived middle of our ongoing policy debate from the actual center more towards the right largely worked. They haven't really given themselves anywhere to go, except even further to the 'conservative' fringe. Painted themselves right into a corner, next to the modern version of the Constitution Party...and that's not where we are currently going as a nation.
30 years from now, a nice chunk of its activist base will have died off,
depriving the RNC of some of its 'legions', even though you'll see their representatives in various House and Senate seats. Just not so many of them and even fewer taken seriously.
Stupid is easy to spot; instead of looking at why they keep losing elections their take home message is to find better ways of bringing out the same anti-anything but white male message and where that might not work ensure that their reps are completely secure in their districts.
And given just how much the lie about not only liberals but to their base on the basic reality of things I have a feeling that them banking on the base to remain stupid is not only a fact but a reelection strategy.