"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

When They Call You Nazi, Don't Smile

On CNN, GOP Chairman Michael Steele assented that the Republican Party looks like the Nazi party. Yeah, that's right. The leader of the GOP sat there nodding his head while some brain dead CNN host called Republicans Nazis.

Well, to be fair he didn't say Republicans were Nazis he just said we looked like Nazis. The host of the show, DL Hughley, said, "You didn’t have to go much further than the Republican National Convention....It literally look[s] like Nazi Germany.”

Hey, here's an idea. When someone calls you a Nazi on television you have a few options:
A) Freak out, call them out for a fight, rip off your microphone, throw it at the cameraman, hurl invectives at the host, accuse their spouse of adultery and slam the door on your way out.
B) Say 'that's a brain dead argument that is beneath this fine program and ask to move on without name calling.'
C) Smile and nod and say "I agree" and "you're right."

Guess which one our fearless leader Michael Steele did. C.

Michael Steele has made a hallmark of his GOP Chairmanship, something he calls "reaching out." Yeah, he's reaching out. Reaching out like the white collar criminal reaches out to the sexually frustrated biker gang in gen-pop. That ain't called reaching out though. It's something else entirely.

Steele is accepting the tenets of the liberal argument that Republicans are the party of evil Nazi-dom. AND THIS GUY IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think Steele actually believes he has to change the party from a bunch of racist mouth breathers into a "hip-hop" party of acceptance. No. He's wrong. What he needs to do is change the perception of the party. And you know what else he needs to do -raise money.

And guess what? Republicans other than Michael Steels don't like being called Nazis. And donations from conservatives tend to go down when they see their leader assent to them being called Nazis.

The GOP is the party of 'don't kill babies.' The GOP is the party of 'let's not grow this government too big because big governments tend to kill people.' The GOP is the party of 'don't killed the disabled.' People who belong to the GOP tend to be more religious and give more to charity. So when someone says the GOP is like the Nazi party, argue with them. Freak out. Turn over some furniture. But please don't agree and nod your head.

Your Ad Here

27 comments:

David L Alexander said...

In modern American discourse, the term "Nazi" has less to do with the political, than it does with the cosmetic. It's not what you believe, it's how you look. You're a white male with too much starch in your button-down collar and a stick up your... well, that means you're a Nazi.

Like many black conservatives, Steele has had to take it on the chin for being an "Uncle Tom" or an "Oreo." If he's guilty of anything, it was thinking he was going to engage in a genuine conversation on the news channels, with another man of color who doesn't move in his circles.

There's also the possibility that Steele has NOT been entirely accepted by the East Coast country club conservative establishment. They might remember him as a kid who used to carry their golf clubs. Maybe that's what he's agreeing with.

Don't think it couldn't happen. In a nation that is still essentially right-of-center philosophically, why do you think McCain lost?

Anonymous said...

I am very disappointed in Mr. Steele's lack of leadership. Today he apologized to Rush Windbagh, whose bloated features and bloated rhetoric are little more than a self-parody of what Mr. Limbaugh was when he was hungry, eager, and just. If Mr. Limbaugh wishes to lead, he should stand for office. He is not my leader, and as of today, neither is Mr. Steele.

God, I miss President Reagan!

-- Mack

Deusdonat said...

Rush Windbag is a sleazy, lying provocateur; the yin to Michael Moor's yang. He doesn't know how to lead, only snipe and belittle those who actually HAVE power. And unfortunately, these days you can make a very good living at this.

Anonymous said...

"The GOP is the party of 'don't kill babies.' The GOP is the party of 'let's not grow this government too big because big governments tend to kill people.'"

In what universe ?

You know what kills people ? The American military in Bush's war.

Meg said...

I think David has a point there, although I would argue that the East Coast Country Club establishment is more "moderate" (read: liberal) than conservative.

As regards the last comment, I believe it was some non-republican "people" who started the whole thing.

Deusdonat said...

Meg - not just the East Coast country club elite, but the West Coast celebrity elite. Arnie, as well as pretty much ANY viable Republican in CA is very much pro-abortion. The GOP here likes to use the cliche "We are fiscally conservative and socially progressive." Makes me want to vomit.

Eo Nomine said...

Don't worry. Our civilization will fall soon enough. Things will get better then.

David L Alexander said...

"You know what kills people ? The American military in Bush's war."

Three items you missed during your in-depth analysis.

1) Abortion kills nearly 4,000 a day in the US. The war in Iraq isn't even close.

2) Bush is no longer president. By your own definition, it's someone else's war now.

3) If you still think Bush was solely responsible for getting us into Iraq, click here.

matthew archbold said...

David L,
Please stop bringing facts into your arguments. You're upsetting some people who don't like them. Thank you.

Deusdonat said...

Sorry, Iraq is still, and will most likely go down in history as "Bush's war". Bush went against the recommendations of the Pope, the UN security council and the military intelligence from various NATO allies on the subject. We now know there were/are no WMD's and that Saddam's evasiveness on the subject was a ploy to scare Iran (Iraq's nemesis) into believing Iraq was still in a position to protect itself. If Bush's war produces stability for the region, then kudos for him. But the fact is there was no Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq prior to the invasion, and now there is. Iraq's Christians were a protected minority under Saddam, and now 90% of them are living outside Iraq as refugees. The only benefit I can possibly see here is the amount of Sunnis and Shi'ites who have killed each other during this conflict. But as mentioned, far too often the Christians have also been targetted or caught in the crossfire.

You can blame Clinton for a LOT (i.e. for not catching Ossama Bin Ladin etc) but the Iraq war is squarely on Bush's shoulders.

David L Alexander said...

"You can blame Clinton for a LOT (i.e. for not catching Ossama Bin Ladin etc) but the Iraq war is squarely on Bush's shoulders."

Only to people with short memories, and a naive conception of how we get entangled in world affairs. To those whose perspective goes over half a century (not to mention those of us who didn't need television to watch 9-11), it's a different story.

Frankly, your answer doesn't come across as blaming Clinton for much of anything. Funny how no one seems to.

Anonymous said...

Bush may *own* the war, but Obama just bought the Depression; lock, stock and barrel. Bush lies people die. Obama lies a nation dies.

Deusdonat said...

David - regarding the Iraq invasion, I am not blaming Clinton, I am blaming Bush, which was I believe the topic at hand. The previous pope called on numerous occasions a diplomatic resolution, and denounced any plans for a war againt Iraq. Bush rejected all of this and invaded anyway.

Now, if you are forming a very simple-minded argument that by mentioning this about Bush, I am tacitly supporting Clinton (or Saddam), then I would suggest you take your thumb out of your mouth and act like a grown-up. I AM ascerting that Clinton was NOT responsible for the invasion of Iraq, and to try and imply or insert blame for this decision which rested SOLELY on Bush's shoulders is both dishonest and cowardly.

As for 9/11, I would ascribe the blame 70% to Clinton and 30% to Bush. And if you knew me, you would also realize that I (as well as many others in an organization I belong to) had been warning about a Mohammedan attack on US soil/targets from 4 years prior. This wasn't rocket science, nor were we channeling spirits or holding crystal balls. It was based on sound facts, testimony, trends and "whispers" within the Mohammedan (mostly Arabic-speaking) world. And all of this was dismissed under Clinton (even though WTC I had ocurred on his watch), and subsequently under Bush until it was too late.

David L Alexander said...

"David - regarding the Iraq invasion, I am not blaming Clinton, I am blaming Bush, which was I believe the topic at hand."

Only when you showed up. Before that, it was about Michael Steele, and Republicans being called Nazis. If you want to blast the barn door wide open on the parameters here, it cuts both ways.

The evidence would suggest that not only Bush, but Clinton, ordered insertions into Iraq. This doesn't let Bush off the hook; it just gives him a lot of company.

Deusdonat said...

David snivels: "...I am not blaming Clinton, I am blaming Bush, which was I believe the topic at hand."

- Only when you showed up."


Wha? See, I thought hearing was the first thing to go. I guess in your case it's the eyesight, since "Anonymous" then YOU, then Matthew commented on the Iraq war; blaming/defending Bush. I was commenting on YOUR comments on the subject. Are you always this surly when you lose arguments?

And Clinton moving against targets in Iraq via air-strikes is/was NOT the same as an invasion and unjust war with the end result of "regime change" where the new regime/ battle strategy/ end strategy was never even a consideration.

Deusdonat said...

correcton: meant to say new regime/ OCCUPATION strategy/ end strategy was never even a consideration. The battle strategy itself was very surgical and well-planned/executed (with the exception of civilian road-block deaths).

David L Alexander said...

"Are you always this surly when you lose arguments?"

No, only when the other guy doesn't realize I've won. Nice job on finding a moral dodge for Clinton, though. America needs more people making excuses for him.

Deusdonat said...

LOL. Yeah, you won just like Saddam "won" the first gulf war.

And if you can't understand the difference between an invasion and an air-strike then maybe that's why you also mistake a history lesson for a "moral dodge", especially since morality doesn't enter at all into the context of this discussion on war (other than the pope declaring it immoral to begin with). Maybe morality just isn't your strong suit.

David L Alexander said...

"Maybe morality just isn't your strong suit."

If it wasn't, I would challenge the Holy Father on what he said about our involvement in Iraq. Maybe you'll notice I didn't. No, my strong suit is the broader view of history, which makes it more difficult to point to one president and blame him for every single thing that happens on his watch.

paul zummo said...

Rush Windbag is a sleazy, lying provocateur; the yin to Michael Moor's yang. He doesn't know how to lead, only snipe and belittle those who actually HAVE power.

Wow, you're characterization of Rush Limbaugh is almost as substantive and accurate of your knowledge of the Iraq War - a diversion, by the way, from the topic of this post.

Deusdonat said...

No, my strong suit is the broader view of history, which makes it more difficult to point to one president and blame him for every single thing that happens on his watch.

Good for you. Maybe you're not as myopic as you come across. Next time instead of trying to characterise everyone who doesn't goose-step along with you as "making excuses" for so-and-so, you should let Mr Brain analise the "broder context" of the post. I didn't blame anyone for everything that happens on someone's watch (assuming you are talking about the Iraq War, since you are eratically jumping from topic to topic here). I said the DECISION to invade Iraq rested clearly on Bush's shoulders. If you think for one minute that Clinton somehow had some telekinetic powers over Bush to force his decision, then maybe you've been listening to the aliens in your microwave oven too much. It was Bush's decision as commander and chief. Period. Full stop. By calling out the failures and/or bad decisions of one president is NOT the same as championing or supporting another. It's narrow-minded "my enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking like that which created the climate which allowed 9/11 to occur.

David L Alexander said...

"If you think for one minute that Clinton somehow had some telekinetic powers over Bush to force his decision, then maybe you've been listening to the aliens in your microwave oven too much."

First of all, how would you know about the capacity of my microwave oven? Now then...

No, Bush wasn't compelled by Clinton's telekinetic powers. You have him confused with the people who voted for him twice. Bush may have been compelled by Clinton's success in undermining our intelligence gathering capability.

I regret that this got off topic. It's just that you and this Anonymous guy showed up, and we couldn't resist your powers of persuasion.

Deusdonat said...

I regret that this got off topic. It's just that you and this Anonymous guy showed up, and we couldn't resist your powers of persuasion.

Hmmm. Usually costs me a couple beers and a "my other car is a jaguar" line to do that. I guess you're just easy.

David L Alexander said...

It's my own fault. Matthew tried to stop me, but I wouldn't listen.

Oh, the shame of it!

Paul Stilwell said...

He said "I agree" before the nazi comment was made. Later he nodded and said "you're right", not specifically and only to the nazi comment but to the whole statement that the dumb guy was making before and after the nazi comment.

No, not brave and leaderly by any means, and he should have addressed the nazi comment boldly, but your reporting of it, while I agree with your commentary, is inaccurate.

D.J. Lower / KKairos said...

At this point if he knew it Steele should have invoked the generalization of Godwin's Law.

(Godwin's Law says that as the length of an internet argument goes to infinity, probability of Nazi comparisons approaches 1. It is often stated as a corollary that the first person to make said comparison loses. So by the generalized corollary, Steele wins whatever debate they may or may not have been having.)

matthew archbold said...

Paul, I don't see how you get around the fact that Steele agreed. He didn't specifically say, "YOu're right about the Nazi thing."
But Hughley went on and on and in the end of his monologue, Steele agreed.

Post a Comment