Sandy Hook

Sandy Hook

Friday, March 26, 2010

GOP says NO to civility

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said NO to Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine's proposal to write a joint statement condemning threats to members of Congress.

The draft text of the statement says that while Steele and Kaine disagree on the health care bill, they would "together call on elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry" and ask "all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior."

Sounds civil to me.

DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse told reporters that Kaine sent the letter to Steele today and then phoned him asking the chairman to release a joint bipartisan statement "condemning the threats and acts of vandalism over the past week, calling for an end to such tactics and urging a more civil tone in our politics." "This afternoon, Chairman Steele, through staff, declined Chairman Kaine's offer," Woodhouse said.

Oops. Stonewalled again.

RNC spokesman Doug Heye whined to TPM, "Gov. Kaine had an opportunity to condemn such activities when he was sitting next to Michael Steele on the set on Meet the Press. He chose not to, and instead decided to use it as an opportunity to raise money,"

Heye added:

Obviously, a large majority of Americans - a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats and Independent - are upset that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid pushed through health care legislation that increases premiums and raises taxes and did so through strong-arm tactics, closed door meetings and sweetheart deals. Voters have a right to be angry. Unfortunately, some have chosen to engage in language and actions that go too far.

So that's it. The Republicans are just mad that they didn't get their way and they want to punish the outlaw Democrats. One thing for sure, the right-wing nuts have learned well from their mentors if their blog comments are any indication. SOS. SOS. SOS.

NO, that's not it. How can the party of  "you lie" and "baby killer" say YES to civility? Why, they could never be uncivil again! They could not abuse traditional rules of House decorum! Worst of all, they could not encourage the wing-nuts to get down and dirty!

HELL NO, they don't want civility.


  1. well aren't they just a bunch of whiny babies! This country needs to speak out on every single thing the party of NO and Hate says and does. They are a disgrace!

  2. Sue - they're shooting themselves in the arse.
    Lean over boys and let me practice one of Sarah's sites on ya.

  3. This was a no-brainer. How can you not sign a letter like this? If Steele had half a brain, he would have drafted it himself. These guys have a tiger by the tail. They know it and have no idea what to do about it.

  4. If Steele had half a brain, he wouldn't be working for the GOP. ; )

  5. This is just another of many examples of the party of no saying NO. It doesn't matter what it is. If a Democrat suggests it, the answer is NO. And this strategy works very well for the republicans because they don't have to think about it.

    It doesn't even require "half a brain".

  6. Is there a "rest of this story"? Like if perhaps Steele objected to the silly biased Madison Avenue name used to refer to the legislation? That's a perfectly reasonable objection. I could see Steele wanting the legislation referred to in objective, less-biased terms. But then he could merely ask to have that changed, not reject it all.

  7. That just shows that they have no intention of changing their current policy of instigating violence. Once disorder reaches a certain level, they claim it proves Democrats' inability to govern and present themselves as the solution.

  8. JC: No it doesn't require "half a brain" but it does show, imo, that Republicans aren't interested in any kind of condemnation of violence and by their silence they are encouraging it.

    dmarks: I'm really not sure what you're saying here. This has nothing to do with HC or legislation. It is all about civility.

    TC: I think I just answered that. I guess we're thinking along the same lines - not for the first time I might add. : )

  9. tnlib: Just that the only thing possible that I could see that Steel could object to is the name given to the healthcare legislation in the statement. But he could easily and publicly ask that it be referred to in objective terms (H.R. etc) and get past that part, if it were a problem.