Quote of the Day

Amen James.

"Do you want to be in a church that's chasing out heretics, or do you want to be in a church that's trying to bring in converts?"

-- James Carville, on Good Morning America, discussing his new book, 40 More Years.

Olympia Snowe: Moderate Republicans like 'Survivor' cast members

By GottaLaff

UPDATE: On MSNBC just now, Olympia Snowe said she is not switching parties.

It's Snowe-ing all over the Rushpublic party:

"Being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of "Survivor" — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you're no longer welcome in the tribe," Snowe wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times. [...]

"It is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party," Snowe says. "It didn't have to be this way." [...]

"Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities - indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash," she writes. "We should view an expansion of diversity within the party as a triumph that will broaden our appeal."

What appeal? Sorry to interrupt. Do go on, Olympia:

"We cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates," Snowe warns.

There it is. Can't prevail with 'em, can't prevail without 'em. Conclusion: The Party of Uh-Uh cannot prevail.

My take? IMHO, the Democratic party has its own sub-party, if you will: the ConservaDems (Moderate Republicans/Conservative Democrats/Blue Dogs, which include Bayh, Specter, etc.). This may be an oversimplification, but it's starting to feel like the Dems are two! Two! Two parties in one! It will be interesting to see what develops, and whether our party is evolving into a single home for what used to be the two parties formerly known as Democrats and Republicans.

Steele v. Dean

By GottaLaff

First Read compares/contrasts the first few months of Howard Dean's stint as DNC chair to Michael Aluminuminuminum's as RNC chair:

In the first few months after becoming DNC chair in ‘05, Howard Dean received plenty attention for controversial remarks he made. He said the GOP was “pretty much a white, Christian party.” He quipped that many Republicans “have not made an honest living in their lives.” And, appearing on “Meet the Press,” he told the late Tim Russert that Tom DeLay was likely going to jail. Those comments became fodder for the New York Times, as well as TV news. But looking back at them, they pale in comparison to what Michael Steele has said in his first few weeks as RNC chair. He suggested that the three GOP senators who voted for the stimulus (Collins, Snowe, and Specter) might face primary challenges and might not receive party funds, but the RNC later backtracked. He called Rush Limbaugh an “entertainer” who was “incendiary” and “ugly,” yet he later apologized. And then he told GQ that abortion is a “personal choice,” but later released a statement maintaining that he’s always been “pro-life.” A lot of this probably has to do with Steele trying to please his audience. He tells FOX he might be up for punishing those Northeast moderates; he interjects to DL Hughley that Limbaugh might not be that helpful; and he strikes a moderate tone on abortion to GQ. Being a chameleon often helps political candidates. But a party chair?

And if Steele were to be removed (which wouldn't be easy)...?

Can the Republican Party, which is struggling to win over minority voters, see two minorities in the last two years (Mel Martinez and Michael Steele) step down as chairman of the party? What message would that send?

Um, I think the Rushpublics sent the ol' "not-inclusive message" long before any thoughts of removing their party chairs.

Obama Transition Team in Touch with Family Research Council

By GottaLaff

Tony Perkins

Awhile back I posted this about Obama's reaching out to faith groups. Now we can add this follow-up:

When I wrote this week about the Obama transition team's frequent outreach to religious groups in the process of its policy planning and agency review, I noted that politically conservative faith-based outfits like the Family Research Council and the public-policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention hadn't been invited to powwows with president-elect Obama [...]

It turns out that the Obama team has been in touch with the Family Research Council, one of the most powerful conservative Christian advocacy groups in Washington. [...]

FRC spokesperson J.P. Duffy confirms that the Obama team placed the call [to Tony Perkins] but that he was unaware of it when he told me earlier in the week that FRC hadn't been contacted by the president-elect's office. [...]

I'd reported earlier that the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land received a phone call from Obama religious affairs director Joshua DuBois, even though Land and his deputies haven't been invited to sit down with the Obama team.

P.E. Obama is nothing if not inclusive.

Gay activists blast Obama over Rev. Rick Warren's Inaugural role

By GottaLaff

From the Department of What Was He Thinking: Paddy posted about Rev. Rick's involvement with the Obama inauguration here. Now we're starting to see the backlash, and it's not pretty:

The Rev. Rick Warren, a conservative evangelical pastor, has been tapped to deliver the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration – and gay rights advocates are not happy about it. [...]

Though he is a prominent figure among religious conservatives, Mr. Warren invited Mr. Obama to speak at an 2006 AIDS summit he held at his mega-church, over the objection of abortion foes. Now, Mr. Obama is facing sharp criticism from part of his base for inviting Mr. Warren.

“Let me get right to the point. Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” wrote Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a letter to Mr. Obama today.

“And by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table,” Mr. Solomonese continued, adding that Mr. Warren had spoken out strongly in favor of a successful gay marriage ban in California and “has often played the role of general in the cultural war waged against LGBT Americans.”

“This tone-deafness to our concerns must not be tolerate,” wrote Kevin Naff, editor of The Washington Blade, a gay-centered publication in the nation’s capital.

Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Mr. Obama’s presidential inaugural committee, said the upcoming ceremony would be the “most open and accessible” inauguration in history and defended the inclusion of Mr. Warren.

“Clearly, the president-elect disagrees with him on issues involving the LGBT community,” she said. But Mr. Obama has consistently stressed the need to “seek common ground with people with whom we disagree fundamentally.”

Ms. Douglass noted that the benediction, or closing prayers, would be offered by the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon who has expressed support for gay marriage, and that the Lesbian and Gay Band Association would march in the inaugural parade, the first time such a group would do so.