An Open Letter to Conservatives

This wasn't written by me, but a gracious poster at TPM's boards (americandad).

Its current location is Here, but it seems to have been removed... and can still be found, cached, here.

Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now.  You've lost me and you've lost most of America.  Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation:  Come back to us.

Now the advice.  You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more.  But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational.  Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred.  Let me provide some examples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:

Hypocrisy

You can't flip out -- and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a parliamentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that's centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.

You can't vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it's done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) --  114 of you (at last count) did just that -- and it's even worse when you secretly beg for more.

You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.

You can't call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.

Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war" at Gitmo? You can't have it both ways.

You can't carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.

You can't refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn't meet with you.

You can't rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.

You can't rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening.

You can't be for immigration reform, then against it .

You can't enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.

You can't flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same.  Bush.  Ford.

You can't complain that the president hasn't closed Gitmo yet when you've campaigned to keep Gitmo open.

You can't flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush.  Nixon. Ike. You didn't even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth) leaders of countries that are not on "kissing terms" with the US.

You can't complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent.  (And, no, Newt -- the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)

You can't attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hours when you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn't issue any condemnation).  *Obama administration did the day of the event.

You can't throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when -- in fact -- only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.

You can't condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attempted terror attack on his.

You can't mount a boycott against singers who say they're ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he's ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Maoist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.

You can't cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it's too short.

You can't support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas.

You can't demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it.  Repeatedly.

You can't praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects under a Rep president, then call it "treasonous" under a Dem president.

You can't propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.

You can't be both pro-choice and anti-choice.

You can't damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you've paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.

You can't condemn criticizing the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president's party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up).

You can't be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.

You can't vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of  'open debate'.

If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether it's 2004 or 2010.  This is true, too, if you're taking GOP money and giving anti-gay rants on CNN.  Taking right-wing money and GOP favors to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution.  This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God's stand, too.

When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you can't send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you made it hypocritical as well).

You can't criticize Dems for not doing something you didn't do while you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have done more in one year than you did in 16.

You can't decry "name calling" when you've been the most consistent and outrageous at it. And the most vile.

You can't spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare

You can't praise the Congressional Budget Office when it's analysis produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it's unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don't.

You can't vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X under a Democratic president.  Either you support X or you don't. And it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake obstructionism.

You can't call a reconciliation out of bounds when you used it repeatedly.

You can't spend taxpayer money on ads against spending taxpayer money.

You can't condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill, when the mandates were your idea.

You can't demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don't.

You can't whine that it's unfair when people accuse you of exploiting racism for political gain, when your party's former leader admits you've been doing it for decades.

You can't portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and passionately support terrorists.

You can't complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you've routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain -- threatening to filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than any other since the procedural tactic was invented -- and admitted it.  Some admissions are unintentional, others are made proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your own ideas.

You can't question the loyalty of Department of Justice lawyers when you didn't object when your own Republican president appointed them.

You can't preach and try to legislate "Family Values" when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer's wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheating on your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coerce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife's mother;

Hyperbole

You really need to disassociate with those among you who:

• assert that people making a quarter-million dollars a year can barely make ends meet or that $1 million "isn't a lot of money";
• say that "Comrade" Obama is a "Bolshevik" who is "taking cues from Lenin";
• ignore the many times your buddies use a term that offends you and complain only when a Dem says it;
• liken political opponents to murderers, rapists, and "this Muslim guy" that "offed his wife's head" or call then "un-American";
• say Obama "wants his plan to fail...so that he can make the case for bank nationalization and vindicate his dream of a socialist economy";
• equate putting the good of the people ahead of your personal fortunes with terrorism;
• smear an entire major religion with the actions of a few fanatics;
• say that the president wants to "annihilate us";
• compare health care reform with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, a Bolshevik plot the attack on 9/11,or reviving the ghosts of communist dictators (update: it's also not Armageddon);
• equate our disease-fighting stem cell research with "what the Nazis did";
• call a bill passed by the majority of both houses of Congress, by members of Congress each elected by a majority in their districts, an unconscionable abuse of power, a violation of the presidential oath or "the end of representative government";
• shout "baby killer" at a member of Congress on the floor of the House, especially one who so fought against abortion rights that he nearly killed health care reform (in fact, a little decorum, a little respect for our national institutions and the people and the values they represent, would be refreshing -- cut out the shouting, the swearing and the obscenities);
• prove your machismo by claiming your going to "crash a party" to which you're officially invited;
• claim that Obama is pushing America's "submission to Shariah";
• question the patriotism of people upholding cherished American values and the rule of law;
• claim the president is making us less safe without a hint of evidence;
• call a majority vote the "tyranny of the minority," even if you meant to call it tyranny of the majority -- it's democracy, not tyranny;
• call the president's support of a criminal trial for a terror suspect "treasonous" (especially when you supported the same thing when the president shared your party);
• call the Pope the anti-Christ;
• assert that the constitutionally mandated census is an attempt to enslave us;
• accuse opponents of being backed by Arab slave-drivers or of being drunk and suicidal;
• equate family planning with eugenics or Nazism;
• accuse the president of changing the missile defense program's logo to match his campaign logo and reflect what you say is his secret Muslim identity;
• accuse political opponents of being totalitarians, socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists;  terrorist sympathizers, McCarthy-like, Nazis or drug pushers; and
• advocate a traitorous act like secession, violent revolution , military coup or civil war (just so we're clear: sedition is a bad thing).

History

If you're going to use words like socialism, communism and fascism, you must have at least a basic understanding of what those words mean (hint: they're NOT synonymous!)

You can't cut a leading Founding Father out the history books because you've decided you don't like his ideas.

You cant repeatedly assert that the president refuses to say the word "terrorism" or say we're at war with terror when we have an awful lot of videotape showing him repeatedly assailing terrorism and using those exact words.

If you're going to invoke the names of historical figures, it does not serve you well to whitewash them. Especially this one.

You can't just pretend historical events didn't happen in an effort to make a political opponent look dishonest or to make your side look better. Especially these events. (And, no, repeating it doesn't make it better.)

You can't say things that are simply and demonstrably false: health care reform will not push people out of their private insurance and into a government-run program ; health care reform (which contains a good many of your ideas and very few from the Left) is a long way from "socialist utopia"; health care reform is not "reparations"; nor does health care reform create "death panels".

Hatred

You have to condemn those among you who:

• call members of Congress n*gger and f*ggot;
• elected leaders who say "I'm a proud racist";
• state that America has been built by white people;
• say that poor people are poor because they're rotten people, call them "parasitic garbage" or say they shouldn't be allowed to vote;
• call women bitches and prostitutes just because you don't like their politics     ( re - pea -ted - ly );
• assert that the women who are serving our nation in uniform are hookers;
• mock and celebrate the death of a grandmother because you disagree with her son's politics;
• declare that those who disagree with you are shown by that disagreement to be not just "Marxist radicals" but also monsters and a deadly disease killing the nation (this would fit in the hyperbole and history categories, too);
• joke about blindness;
• advocate euthanizing the wife of your political opponent;
• taunt people with incurable, life-threatening diseases -- especially if you do it on a syndicated broadcast;
• equate gay love with bestiality -- involving  horses or dogs or turtles or ducks -- or polygamy, child molestation, pedophilia;
• casually assume that only white males look "like a real American";
• assert presidential power to authorize torture,  torture a child by having his testicles crushed in front of his parents to get them to talk, order the massacre of a civilian village  and launch a nuclear attack without the consent of Congress;
• attack children whose mothers have died;
• call people racists without producing a shred of evidence that they've said or done something that would even smell like racism -- same for invoking racially charged "dog whistle" words (repeatedly);
• condemn the one thing that every major religion agrees on;
• complain that we no longer employ the tactics we once used to disenfranchise millions of Americans because of their race;
• blame the victims of natural disasters and terrorist attacks for their suffering and losses;
• celebrate violence , joke about violence, prepare for violence or use violent imagery, "fun" political violence, hints of violence, threats of violence (this one is rather explicit), suggestions of violence or  actual violence (and, really, suggesting anal rape with a hot piece of metal is beyond the pale); and
• incite insurrection telling people to get their guns ready for a "bloody battle" with the president of the United States.

Oh, and I'm not alone:  One of your most respected and decorated leaders agrees with me.

So, dear conservatives, get to work.  Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bald-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred.  Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America.  We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we'll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms.  We need you.

(Anticipating your initial response:  No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.)

Written by Russell King

Update: removed the mouth kissing reference and tried to clean up spelling

I can declare victory now... and not have to whine about it?

Sure, Stupak got his way, but if you can't see that the real issue is that woman, living women, have health care, and will continue to receive better health care, then you have more problems than I can enumerate.

Now, considering I'll probably have a job in 4 years where I'm employed and have health insurance... according to the fun little Washington Post App I can find out that yes, I'm going to be able to get health insurance on the exchanges, but, no, currently, I'm not going to receive any assistance on premiums.

Works for me, pooling together risk pools is much cheaper than letting us all fend for ourselves.

Pretty Darn Impressive.

"Bottom line: The current legislation is not “pro-abortion,” and there is no, repeat no, federal funding of abortion in the bill." (Via Yglesias)

I think it's funny how, EVERY TIME there's a complaint about the bill, it's normally well documented that its not the case... Sure, the legislation probably was a bit stronger, but, as was said in the same post (or links thereinto)... You can't prevent your dollars, regardless of how you spend them, from going into the hands of abortion supporters. Boycott probably half to three quarters of the current marketplace, because, funding ends up from their hands, into that which you disapprove of. It's the principle of the matter? Well. Be consistent with your principles.

Secondly, how about the cost? It's been already stated that the plan, as is will save the government billions over the next 10 years, and save ALL OF US, money over the same time period by cost controls to insurance companies for the same reason. Amazing. Fiscal conservatives should be all over this... except... they're not? Man, if the Democrats were as well organized and marshalled and as staunch as the Republicans, this would have been done sometime last year.

A bit from Forbes quoting:

"Rep. Tim Ryan, an anti-abortion Democrat from Ohio, said through a spokesman that he, too, is siding with the nuns and hospitals and will vote for the bill.

On the House floor Friday, Ryan took issue with several arguments Republicans have used against the bill. He said the GOP argues that "seniors are against it, but then AARP endorses it. Our friends on the other side say doctors are against it, but the American Medical Association endorses it."

"You say that this is pro-abortion," he continued, and yet "you have 59,000 Catholic nuns from across the country endorsing this bill, 600 Catholic hospitals, 1,400 Catholic nursing homes endorsing this bill.""

The USCCB (Catholic Conference of Bishops) are again, on the wrong side of the bill. Why? It's politics. It's politics. It's always been politics. Even if it's NOT politics, it's ALWAYS politics.

That said. Stupak needs to get his head out of his bottom and realize, like Ryan, the benefits, and the support are there.

We're getting this shit done for everyone, even if it's kinda bad, even if it's still a private system... It's a step.

A step to hopefully a public system where the goal is wellness and not profit margins.

Glenn Beck just blows my mind.

Being a Republican would blow my mind.

Prime Example

Yeah.

I don't understand how my friends, as intelligent as they may be seem to submit to the Limbaughs, the Becks, the Hannity's, the Malkins, as being anything but remotely substantive?

Fly By Night

I find it absolutely hilarious that, after much hullabaloo... the health care will come silently in the night. Every delay, every stoppage, every deceptive moment, it will pass.

Maybe I'll be able to pay a decent amount for health insurance now.

For the record: Ad Hominem attacks are my least favorite way to argue.

The DC Catholic Church

Okay, big shocker. I'm Catholic.

Do I have a problem with what the Church is doing? Yes.

If you're unaware of the situation... Here's a quick fill in.

Recap: Catholic Charities decides to stop giving spousal benefits because of the recent amendment in DC that allows Gay Marriage.

To clarify: Catholic Charities is NOT the distinct opinions and laws of the Catholic Church as a whole. Sure they may be badgered by the USCCB (the governing body of Bishops in America, which are based in DC) and the DC Archdiocese... the blame lies on them. I do not see them turning down support to those outcased by society in the work they do, they don't turn down addicts, prostitutes, single mothers, divorcees, rapists who embody poverty... because, for CHRIST SAKE, Christ never did...

Why do they do it to the people who work for them?

Why is this totally bogus: Because, for one, this sounds just like a power play to me. I'm going to flex my might to get my way, or else... And in reality, they went to an or else situation. The part that gets me most is this, if the CHURCH has a problem with gay sex, is it possible to be married and celebate... and as a gay catholic, consummate the marriage, atone, and then be in full communion with the church again. If the sin lies in the act, then, how is the Church going to regulate the act? It makes no bloody sense... because the church doesn't prosecute adulterers, those out of wedlock, those who use birth control, those who sin... if there is NO SIN that's greater than another, there should be no difference in the eyes of the church between someone who lies to evade

Is the Catholic Faith to blame?

No, because it's less the morality of it, than the rampant conservatism running through the catholic church lately. Its full on turned to straight up republicanism over my lifetime to my dismay. One BIG catholic tenant is that there is no one worse sin than another. If you actually investigate the Church's Catechism (aka, the book of rules), there is a list of mortal sins that EVERY DAY PEOPLE COMMIT... and if one mortal sin is no worse than another, gay sex, theologically, is no worse than bearing false witness... Certainly there's different levels of 'gravity' of sins, but, one mortal sin isn't any worse in the sense that it breaks your communion with the holiest of holies. Living in sin pulls you away from God.

Now, I'm not trying to pull a holy card here, as I haven't been to Church in years, but... I know a fair amount of theology from my time in college. But I know something isn't fundamentally right when I hear of this kind of disenfranchisement.

It's not like they are going into the bedroom and checking out the moral relationships of everyone outside the office.

Catholic Charities in their ethics training course stresses (ppt format):
- A call to live in harmony with an emphasis on human dignity and community and the common good

A great start for working with the poorest of the poor...

-[to be] Universal and inclusive – addresses all humankind (not just Catholicism)

which means, be respectable inside and out to every person you work with, not just in a catholic way, and not just to catholics... all inclusive...

-Catholic Charities respects the religious beliefs and values of all clients, staff and volunteers

WHOA WHOA WHOA... okay. it's my religious belief that two gay people can get married and love each other, and adopt children, who, incidentally, can grow up and be great catholics... and you're going to tell me that staff members values are STILL BEING RESPECTED with this?

-Catholic Charities does not provide services that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church

Sure, you won't provide abortions, or birth control, but is health care and benefits contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church? Hell no, you've been doing it for years for heterosexual couples.

-[Catholic Charaties values] Non-discrimination

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate the policies to some overzealous leaders.

Aye. So, I think we've come to realize that, for the most part, this is a rogue move that's going against the grain of everything Catholic Charities stands for.

I don't see the need for such drastic condemnation, you work with people who exemplify the tenents of Catholic Social Teaching, but you cannot give the same respect to your employees? Despicable. There's no reason, no option, no given implications if you're 'giving gay couples health benefits' that you're saying 'hey, it's totally cool if you marry'. No, A does not mean B. You're not implicitly or explicitly saying you support gay marriage if you give financial support to a gay couple. You're supporting a person, not a 'thing', this person, according to the Catachism again is "not just something, but someone. They are capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving themselves and entering into communion with other persons. And they are called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer them a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in their stead."

I wish that the straight people would be able to sue for some discrimination against Catholic Charities, that they're being discriminated against because the LGBT crowd is being discriminated against.

American Pride

Watching US vs Canada this weekend made me less proud to be an American, not because of the way we played, but because of the way we as Americans have come to handle ourselves.

I watch the national team hang their heads dejectedly. I saw no reason for any sort of dejection during the celebration. Losing is part of the game they play, yeah, tough loss, but, you played a hell of a game, you tied it up with 20 seconds left, you played great defense... even the cliche "they left everything on the ice".

And yet, they weren't proud. They weren't proud of being competitive, they were pissed because they lost, 1v1 with one of the best scorers in the league.

And then, the people started railing, my twitter abuzz with 'fuck you crosby's and comments of that nature... Not a single person said 'damn, that was a great game'... It was, in fact, professional sports... not the olympics. Sure, it was competitive, but, some teams, some athletes would dream of Silver... The Americans? Fuck no. We're too good for Silver. Go Big or Go Home.

That shouldn't be our attitude. When it matters most, the US gave everything it had, pulled shit out of thin air to put the biscuit in the basket (that and a great rebound shot...), and they should be glad they gave every ounce they had... now, they played a bit too passively in OT, didn't have the same finishing aggression they had in the last 10 minutes of the third.

*shrugs*

I sorta wished it went to a shootout, but, I was proud of the Americans for playing the way they did, not the way they handled themselves.