It's time for the Republicans who are so bent on enforcing conformity to ask themselves a question: What would Ronald Reagan have done? He worked hard to maintain a welcoming, open and diverse Republican Party. He would have been appalled to see Republicans like Fletcher and Adams conclude that they had no other option than to leave the party.

We need to remind the Republicans who want to enforce ideological purity that if they succeed, they will undo Reagan's work to create an inclusive party that could fit many different views.

An inclusive party would welcome the party's most conservative activists right alongside its most liberal activists. There is room for those whose views, I think, make them sound like cavemen. And there is also room for us in the center, with views the traditionalists probably think make us sound like progressive softies. What's important is our shared belief in the broad Republican principles of free enterprise and small government. If we continue to fight one another without being willing to compromise, we will keep losing to big-government advocates.

We need to welcome young leaders into the party and invite them to participate in a robust debate. Republicans love the free market, so it should seem like a no-brainer that the more views we have at the table, the better our final product will be.

To succeed, Republicans need to embrace true Reaganism, and that means embracing the true Reagan, a brave and independent leader who believed in solutions and compromise.

As governor, Reagan was never afraid to buck his party. He raised taxes when he saw no other way to get California out of the red, and he created the California Environmental Protection Agency because, as strongly as he believed in eliminating unnecessary government regulation, he also saw wisdom in protecting our natural resources.

As president, Reagan worked very well with Democrats to do big things. It is true that he worked to reduce the size of government and cut federal taxes and he eliminated many regulations, but he also raised taxes when necessary. In 1983, he doubled the gas tax to pay for highway infrastructure improvements.

Today, that would be enough for some of the ideological enforcers to start looking for a "real" conservative to challenge him in a primary.

Arnold speaks:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-oe-schwarzenegger-gop-needs-to-be-more-inclusiv-20120506,0,178448.story

To me the most interesting stories the last couple of days have been international ones. The Socialists regaining power in France after 17 years is huge. There is not actually much in the way of socialism they CAN do without leaving the EU, but it'll be interesting to see how the dynamics change and if France-Germany will still be BFFs.

And of course the disastrous Greek election is the biggest clusterfuck democracy has given us in years. I hate what the Greek people are going through, I saw a pictorial on life in Greece a couple weeks ago that just broke my heart, but their crisis just fascinates me.

The end of an era has come to Indiana:

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11604125-nbc-news-projects-lugar-defeated-in-indiana-primary?lite

Senator Lugar has been a true statesman, not to mention the longest serving GOP Senator. To go from being unopposed in 2006 to this--what a turnaround.

As a Democrat, however, I'm not gonna lie--bring on Joe Donnelly! I wish we could have someone a little bit more liberal (where is Birch Bayh when you need him?--Actually, he's living on the Eastern Shore of my homestate of Maryland now--very cool!), but I'm ready for a real race here.

I thought this was interesting. It's clear that the "liberal" media were expecting Romney to go back to being their special, oh-so-sensible friend.

http://firstread.msn...ar-likely-loses

*** Where’s the pivot? A woman at a Romney town hall yesterday said President Obama should be tried for treason. Romney said nothing while on stage to correct her or dispute her. It can be debated whether the woman was trying out a bad joke or whatever. What’s not debatable is that Romney just doesn’t have great instincts and that he’s not yet in general-election mode. Another piece of evidence was an exchange with a medical student – one the Obama campaign will push today -- who asked what Romney’s “thoughts on education and financing so that more individuals like myself, who can’t afford it, but still grow up and be the future of America?” Romney’s response: to attack Obama for offering “free stuff” to ramp up support with young voters. He didn’t even attempt to empathize with the student. Romney’s still stuck in primary mode, reflexively only thinking about not offending primary voters instead of swing voters. Whether they like Obama, swing voters don’t like the toxic conversation. When he doesn’t deal with it’s a problem. Charlie Cook writes today: “Having devoted every waking hour for the last year and a half to catering to the carnivores in his party, Romney needs to cut back on the red-meat rhetoric…” Ironically, the criticism from the right during the primary was that he looked like he was too concerned about the middle. Now, he looks like he’s more concerned about primary. It’s like he forgot how to run as a moderate, which of course is why some Republicans got on board in the first place.

Politically, Romney has never been anything other than a con artist. He has adapted so much to the hard right sell that he won't stop now.

It's very telling that he can only sneer at student loans as "free stuff." On another occasion, he told students to just ask their parents for money.

The rich like Romney are happy and proud that they can now openly admit how much contempt they have for anyone who isn't rolling in cash. That will just become more and more flagrant as the campaign goes on. It's a very cynical campaign - let's just tell these people they are bums and need to stop expecting handouts (handouts are only for the banks) - and sadly, it will likely work.

I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor tsk-tsking people for saying Romney should have told that woman that Obama shouldn't be tried for treason. Only in today's media environment would you have the press PRAISING Romney for not condemning accusations of treason.

Edited May 9, 201213 yr by CarlD2

Awful.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11604355-north-carolina-oks-constitutional-same-sex-marriage-ban?lite

This law also nullifies existing domestic partnership ordinances in various cities, and will nullify domestic violence laws for people who are not legally married.

Awful.

http://nbcpolitics.m...rriage-ban?lite

One noteworthy pattern was that some majority black counties which had strongly backed President Obama in 2008 just as strongly supported the proposed amendment on Tuesday.

Why am I not surprised? The community that has been most the victim of bias and prejudice in this country is once again first in line to vote their own prejudices and bias.

WHOA!

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11621156-obama-backs-same-sex-marriage?lite

Yeah pretty big news. I'm not surprised it's been a long time coming, I figured he would come out to support gay marriage, but I didn't think he would be until after the election, more risky to announce this now.

That's certainly a big step, and one I never thought I'd see.

I will say that if he had just said this some time ago he would have saved himself a big headache, because now it seems like politics. I also expect this will cause a drop in support of gay marriage, because the media will spin this very negatively, and it will become a more polarized issue. It comes across as too little, too late, when it didn't have to be this way.

For all the breathless media talk of "moderate" and "sensible conservative" Mitt Romney, in that article he continues to show just how hostile he is to gay rights. The most he can support is domestic partnership benefits, and my guess is he doesn't even support that, since he said absolutely nothing about the NC amendment which bans them. He will not hire gay people for his campaign. He opposed DADT repeal. He opposes anti-discrimination laws.

Only in today's world does opposing any form of gay rights and supporting the departure of gay employees make you a moderate!

Edited May 9, 201213 yr by CarlD2

I guess this is the time when President Obama is hailed as a "hero." Of course, he actually first supported gay marriage in 1996, but he flip-flopped (sorry, "evolved" is the proper term when it comes to him) when it came to pursuing his own national advancement. (This is similar to how Romney was originally a social conservative, then became a social liberal after moving to MA, and is now a social conservative again.)

I'll at least give him credit for flip-flopping now instead of after the election. Because he was getting hammered for playing both sides of the fence (see below), it just made sense for him to make this statement.

http://www.mediaite....iage-evolution/

On Tuesday night, Jon Stewart delved in to the twilight zone that is Washington D.C. to discuss an issue dominating the news this week: gay marriage. Tracing the chronology — from Joe Biden‘s remark on Sunday, to the reaction that followed, to the subsequent reassessing of President Obama‘s “evolution” on the issue — The Daily Show looked at how far the president has come in terms of supporting marriage equality. He has evolved: from openly supporting gay marriage to becoming, well, a political candidate.

Stewart noted Biden’s “moment of candor” before taking a look at the rather contradictory response that followed. Biden, immediately after making the remarks, said he was speaking personally, for himself, and not for the president. Meanwhile, David Axelrod tweeted that Biden’s sentiment was aligned with the president’s. And then there’s White House Press Secretary Jay Carney‘s scrambling to answer questions — reminding us of the president’s “evolution,” and adding, “it is as it was.”

To further dissect Obama’s stance on gay marriage, Stewart turned to White House correspondent Jon Oliver. The two pondered the effect of television on Obama’s views (turns out, while Biden was watching Will & Grace, Obama was paying more attention to Raymond and how everybody loves him). Circling back from a brief tangent about Modern Family (it’s the writing and the acting), Oliver provided a look at how far Obama’s views have come.

In a 1996 questionnaire, filled out and signed by Obama, who was running for the Illinois state Senate, Obama wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

“That’s full-on support,” Stewart said.

“Absolutely unequivocally supported it, Jon,” Oliver said. “Then he evolved.”

“Into what?” Stewart asked.

Oliver replied, “A candidate, Jon.”

The sad thing is that if Obama loses, it will be blamed on gay marriage, when the actual reason for such a loss will be the economy.

I will say that if he had just said this some time ago he would have saved himself a big headache, because now it seems like politics. I also expect this will cause a drop in support of gay marriage, because the media will spin this very negatively, and it will become a more polarized issue. It comes across as too little, too late, when it didn't have to be this way.

Given the size of his 2008 victory, he could have been shown some real bravery and supported it then (and still won). Certainly, that's what one would expect from a candidate who was hailed as a different type of politician.

Edited May 9, 201213 yr by Max

The sad thing is that if Obama loses, it will be blamed on gay marriage, when the actual reason for such a loss will be the economy.

Gays always get the blame anyway. They did in 2004, as very prominent Democrats blamed gay marriage for the loss, instead of the lousy campaign of John Kerry and the national party. This actually gives Democrats an easy way out if Obama loses - they won't have to address any of their failings.

Edited May 9, 201213 yr by CarlD2

The one thing that makes this particularly interesting (to me, at least) is that the DNC this year is being held in Charlotte, whose state just upheld an amendment banning same sex marriage.

Edited May 9, 201213 yr by MissLlanviewPA

The one thing that makes this particularly interesting (to me, at least) is that the DNC this year is being held in Charlotte, whose state just upheld an amendment banning same sex marriage.

NC (which Obama doesn't need anyway) is the only (one-time) swing state where being in favor of gay marriage will likely doom his chances. Romney still faces a big uphill climb in accumulating 270 electoral votes.

Edited May 9, 201213 yr by Max

I don't think gay marriage support will hurt his chances in North Carolina. I think it's mostly about the economy.