• commentary
  • THURSDAY DECEMBER 11 2008 6:00 AM

Who To Lead The Republitards?

The Republican Party is floundering like a gay penis in a vagina. They really have no idea what to do. Some want to go more religious conservative, while others want to go more economic conservative. The choice is obvious if they want to have anything to do with running the country over the next 25 years. They have to move away from the religious nuts. The “I’m okay with destroying the world and the country because Jesus is coming in a couple of years” thing ain’t working. Next month, Republicans will pick their new RNC chair and that will tell us a lot about which way they want to go. I’m hoping for religious nutjob. Let’s take a look at the leading contenders.

Chip Saltsman

Who? He was the powerhouse, mind-man behind the amazing success of non-president Mike Huckabee. Saltsman is being given credit for running Huckabee’s campaign well. Um. Okay. The only reason Huckabee was even close is because he was the craziest religious nut in the race. All the mindless drones punched his ballot for the baby Jesus. But he did outlast Romney and Giuliani, or as they will be known on their new sitcom, The Mormon and Lispy, so he gets some sort of credit. Saltsman was also chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party. Yowza! And a political advisor for Bill Frist’s PAC, as well as development director and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Wow. That’s an amazing resume of not much. This is whom I want to win. He’s a religious nut and quite inexperienced. Go Saltsman!

Jim Greer

Jimbo is the Florida Republican Party chairman, so he knows how to steal elections, which is a huge plus. After that, his resume is not as awesome. He served two terms on the city council of Oviedo, Florida. And you know the old saying, "As Oviedo goes, so goes America." Also, Oviedo sounds like a brand of soap, which I find to be very attractive. He is less conservative than most other candidates, so I assume he doesn’t have much of a chance. If Republicans go with Jimbo, they could actually regain some power.

Michael Steele

He’s black! Huge plus for Republicans. They really, really want to pretend like they care about black people and putting a black man in charge would do a lot to carry on the myth. Steele is the chairman of GOPAC, which is like the Republican minor leagues. The PAC recruits and helps Republicans get elected to state and local offices. Heard of Sarah Palin She’s a product of GOPAC. So, obviously Steele is a fucking genius. What he is, is a Republican talking point machine.

He chaired the Maryland GOP from 2000-2002 and was lieutenant governor of Maryland from 2002-2006. He then ran for the Senate and lost. Steele believes in a less attack oriented version of the RNC. He doesn’t believe in beating Democrats as much as winning voters. Steele also helped found the Republican Leadership Council.

RLC-PAC's vision is a Republican Party that is unified by the basic tenets of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, but that allows for diverse opinions on social issues by its members.

RLC-PAC members consider themselves True Conservative Republicans. Republicans who believe that our elected officials have a responsibility to their constituents to spend their money wisely. We believe that government should have a limited role in American’s personal lives. And we believe in a strong national defense.



The Christian Right is very, very opposed to Steele, so his nomination could also swing the RNC to the middle. But he is like any other Republican on all other issues. By that I mean, he is really fucking stupid.

Mike Duncan

He’s the current chairman and he was the big, black guy in The Green Mile. Right? No? If Republicans pick Duncan, it means they think all is well. Some want him, but I can’t see it happening. They are not that stupid, are they?

Katon Dawson

Get your Katon on! Dawson has been the South Carolina Republican Party chairman for 6 kick ass years. It is really hard to get Republicans elected in South Carolina, so he should be praised for his great record. Dude is amazingly good at fundraising, which Republicans totally love. Katon recently held a conference about getting Katon Dawson elected as RNC chairman and peeps from all over the country attended. He has worked hard to bring minorities into the Republican Party. The religious nuts are into him.

American Family Association founder Don E. Wildmon has endorsed South Carolina Republican Party head Katon Dawson's RNC chairman's bid.

In an e-mail sent to supporters today, Wildmon writes "if the Republican Party is to survive, it must get back to its roots. I believe that Katon Dawson...has the ability to take the party where it needs to go."



Great. Just let us know what the “roots” are, because I see McCarthyism and corruption. Katon is being attacked for being super white, which is weird, considering Republicans usually see that as a feather in the cap. Times are a changing. But in the end, Katon is more of the same.

There are several steps that we must take to renew, reform and restore the greatness of the Republican Party.

Renew our commitment to our Party’s timeless principles…by reconfirming our commitment to be the party of smaller government, lower taxes, individual freedom, strong national security, respect for the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, the importance of family and the exceptionalism of America.



That’s the failure recipe that brought Republicans to where they are today. Katon is my #2 choice.

Saul Anuzis

Saul has been running the Michigan Republican Party since 2005. Obviously he is flourishing, because Michigan is a huge red state, right? No? He’s a former Teamster. Seriously. Saul is a good PR man and is all about the Republican Party getting its technological shit together. He wants to implement a 50 state Howard Dean type of strategy and actually sounds rather smart.

We were once the party that America trusted on national security. But when intelligence failures and poor planning led to unexpected challenges in Iraq, America lost faith in our party.

We were once the party of fiscal responsibility. But when members of our own party led the way in pork barrel spending, which led to the fattest federal budget in history, America lost faith in our party.

And we were once the party that had convinced America that we “shared their values”. But when Republican after Republican was exposed as a hypocrite that said one thing on the campaign trail and behaved a different way in their personal life, America lost faith in our party.



But then you get to the religious part and, well, the train goes off the tracks.

We must be the party that believes there is a place for God in our society. That we were founded on Judeo-Christian values that provided us with the foundation for our unique form of government. In fact, we are the only country in the world who’s founding document formally states that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” not bestowed by a King, or the government, the military or any other force, but that “we the people” are empowered by God to lead our country.



I can’t believe a guy named Saul is a religious nut. Saul is a big time long shot because Michigan Republicans didn’t produce. But he’s the one who worries me the most.

What he brings to the table is his enthusiasm, his PR savvy, and his knowledge and understanding of why the party needs to change technologically. It would be great if the Republicans took their time getting around to the technology stuff.

Ken Blackwell is also in the running, but he has no chance. His name is too dirty after the 2004 Ohio elections — and he's an idiot.

So, there you go. Take your pick. There are only one or two who can turn the party around, the rest are idiots that bring more of the same.


FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday for more from FearTheReaper and read his blog, Stop All Monsters.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Comments
Accuser

Accuser

Dana Point, CA
October 2006

DEC 11, 2008 08:17 AM

Definitely hoping for Steele. But I want the Republican Party to actually become a group of decent people and experience some success, rather than just fail harder.

CoyoteMike

CoyoteMike

Iowa City, IA
May 2006

DEC 11, 2008 09:04 AM

I am still hoping for a party split. Have the religious nut jobs join together behind Palin and let the serious Conservatives, who actually want to work for what is best and understand the meaning of the word "compromise" take over the Republican Party . . . and never ever let Guliani near any public office again.

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

DEC 11, 2008 09:10 AM

Coyotemike said:
I am still hoping for a party split. Have the religious nut jobs join together behind Palin and let the serious Conservatives, who actually want to work for what is best and understand the meaning of the word "compromise" take over the Republican Party . . . and never ever let Guliani near any public office again.



Thank you. I would also rather have the Republicans break into weaker, less representable units, and retain a strong liberal Democratic party.

RandomNerd

RandomNerd

I'm lost
January 2005

DEC 11, 2008 09:10 AM

Coyotemike said:
I am still hoping for a party split. Have the religious nut jobs join together behind Palin and let the serious Conservatives, who actually want to work for what is best and understand the meaning of the word "compromise" take over the Republican Party . . . and never ever let Guliani near any public office again.



Those "Compromise" guys are going to be very small party, I fear...

And precedent is against Giuliani. No NYC Mayor was ever elected to another position after being Hizzoner.

Accuser

Accuser

Dana Point, CA
October 2006

DEC 11, 2008 09:17 AM

MisterEnrolled said:
Thank you. I would also rather have the Republicans break into weaker, less representable units, and retain a strong liberal Democratic party.



I'm not sure that the Democratic Party would retain its numbers if this split happened. Once the religious nutjobs jumped ship, I bet you'd end up with a lot of supporters for a socially liberal and fiscally conservative party. I know I'd be there, given actual plans and leadership.

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

DEC 11, 2008 09:34 AM

Accuser said:

MisterEnrolled said:
Thank you. I would also rather have the Republicans break into weaker, less representable units, and retain a strong liberal Democratic party.



I'm not sure that the Democratic Party would retain its numbers if this split happened. Once the religious nutjobs jumped ship, I bet you'd end up with a lot of supporters for a socially liberal and fiscally conservative party. I know I'd be there, given actual plans and leadership.



The memory of what happens when you trust conservatives would linger for a short period of time - enough time to solidify the Democrats as a majority party for quite a few terms. They might even absorb other, smaller liberal parties in order to stave off future conservative coalitions.

CoyoteMike

CoyoteMike

Iowa City, IA
May 2006

DEC 11, 2008 09:38 AM

Accuser said:

MisterEnrolled said:
Thank you. I would also rather have the Republicans break into weaker, less representable units, and retain a strong liberal Democratic party.



I'm not sure that the Democratic Party would retain its numbers if this split happened. Once the religious nutjobs jumped ship, I bet you'd end up with a lot of supporters for a socially liberal and fiscally conservative party. I know I'd be there, given actual plans and leadership.



I think you might be right, but not with the same results. A split in the Republican party might lead to a split in the Democrats as well. Maybe it would lead to a multi-party system, which would be more representative but would probably slow the government down even more.

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

DEC 11, 2008 10:04 AM

Coyotemike said:

Accuser said:

MisterEnrolled said:
Thank you. I would also rather have the Republicans break into weaker, less representable units, and retain a strong liberal Democratic party.



I'm not sure that the Democratic Party would retain its numbers if this split happened. Once the religious nutjobs jumped ship, I bet you'd end up with a lot of supporters for a socially liberal and fiscally conservative party. I know I'd be there, given actual plans and leadership.



I think you might be right, but not with the same results. A split in the Republican party might lead to a split in the Democrats as well. Maybe it would lead to a multi-party system, which would be more representative but would probably slow the government down even more.



Looking at how things are going in Canada recently has convinced me that althought multiple parties can and will exist, they will form political sides which are hard to refute. Multiple parties, two sides.

Heigai

Heigai

Columbus, OH
May 2004

DEC 11, 2008 10:49 AM

MisterEnrolled said:
Looking at how things are going in Canada recently has convinced me that althought multiple parties can and will exist, they will form political sides which are hard to refute. Multiple parties, two sides.



Hm. I would assert that you likely need a less ahistorical viewing of Canadian politics, then.

Sometimes issues have two sides. Canadian parliament is decidedly more subtle and broad.

Pom_felo

Pom_felo

San Antonio, TX
February 2004

DEC 11, 2008 11:10 AM

If there was ever a split, it would last for one election. Votes getting split three ways while freezing out the moderates would be devastating for the Republicans. The GOP is nothing if not pragmatic. (Evilly pragmatic at times, but still.)


The Republican Party is floundering like a gay penis in a vagina.



Why do you write things I can't un-read?

JohnnyForeigner

JohnnyForeigner

United Kingdom
July 2003

DEC 11, 2008 11:25 AM

FearTheReaper said:

Chip Saltsman



There's a real person with that name? He sounds like a corporate mascot surreal

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

DEC 11, 2008 12:01 PM

Toku666 said:

MisterEnrolled said:
Looking at how things are going in Canada recently has convinced me that althought multiple parties can and will exist, they will form political sides which are hard to refute. Multiple parties, two sides.



Hm. I would assert that you likely need a less ahistorical viewing of Canadian politics, then.

Sometimes issues have two sides. Canadian parliament is decidedly more subtle and broad.



I am sorry that I don't have an entire history book about Canadian Politics handy.

Heigai

Heigai

Columbus, OH
May 2004

DEC 11, 2008 12:33 PM

MisterEnrolled said:

Toku666 said:

MisterEnrolled said:
Looking at how things are going in Canada recently has convinced me that althought multiple parties can and will exist, they will form political sides which are hard to refute. Multiple parties, two sides.



Hm. I would assert that you likely need a less ahistorical viewing of Canadian politics, then.

Sometimes issues have two sides. Canadian parliament is decidedly more subtle and broad.



I am sorry that I don't have an entire history book about Canadian Politics handy.



You just never fail to double down on the glibness, do you?

Gloss over my point if you like, but Canadian parliament does not boil down to "multiple parties, two sides" the way you state.

Get over it already.

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

DEC 11, 2008 01:01 PM

MisterEnrolled said:

Looking at how things are going in Canada recently has convinced me that althought multiple parties can and will exist, they will form political sides which are hard to refute. Multiple parties, two sides.



Not even remotely true.

RandomNerd

RandomNerd

I'm lost
January 2005

DEC 11, 2008 01:15 PM

What about Palin, the Maverick? She'll be a bang-up Maverick GOP Chairmaverick Maverick Maverick.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next