I've made it to the initial round for favorite progressive blogger in the Air America Cruise Contest. I have to stay in the Top 5 before the second voting round begins, so your vote is appreciated! First voting round:
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Black GOP political consultant Raynard Jackson's latest guest post doesn't pull any punches about the soon-to-be former governor of Alaska. -- Pam
During last year's presidential election, Alaska governor Sarah Palin infamously accused Barack Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists." Of course this was an outright lie. So, after last Friday's press announcement that she was resigning her position as governor, one might rightly conclude that she has been "pallin' around with incompetence." But, in her case, this much is true.
When John McCain named her as his running-mate, the presidential campaign was effectively over. This will go down as the worst vice presidential pick in history! She brought absolutely nothing to the ticket. If you are still trying to solidify your base of support in August before a November election, you are in big trouble.
A young (45 years old), somewhat decent looking female who could read a teleprompter fairly well, was supposed to help win an election? What did that say about John McCain and the Republican Party? It showed how desperate they were.
Palin had little experience, no vision, and was and is politically tone deaf. From a PR perspective, she needed (and never received) voice training. Her voice is very irritating to listen too because of it's pitch. She misuses the English language (folksy talking may work in Alaska, but it doesn't come across well in a national campaign). She also should have been told to leave her children at home. Her using her children as props was very weird. Dragging around her infant, downs syndrome child was bordering on abuse. How do you justify dragging around a newborn on planes and having him on stage after 10 p.m. exposed to thousands of people? Some people will do anything for power.
Ever-shrinking head of the RNC, Michael Steele, has found himself undermined at every turn by the good-old-boys who wanted some window dressing for a party seen as the last refuge for the bigot demographic. I was wondering what Republican political consultant Raynard Jackson, who knows Steele, thought about all the embarrassing, degrading things that have been going on inside the Republican party. He sent in this op-ed.
Michael Steele--Chairman of the Bored
by Raynard Jackson
Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, is more like chairman of the bored. If committee members would spend half as much time fighting Democrats and President Obama as they spend fighting Steele, maybe the party wouldn't be in such disarray.
In all my years in this party, I have never seen any other chairman micro-managed to this extent. It is well documented that Steele got off to a rocky start, but either he is going to be chairman or he's not. If the committee doesn't have confidence in him, then vote him out. But, if he is chairman, let him operate as such and then hold him accountable for his results.
I don't think this is a racial thing, but the perception is very problematic. The public is not privy to the inner workings or discussions within the committee (and really could care less). But, I have been amazed at the number of phone calls I have received from "non-political" people asking if Republicans are doing this because Steele is Black?
Again, I don't think it's racial, but all this public fighting is creating that perception among some outside of DC.
I think this in-fighting has more to do with Steele being an outsider to the committee and his having a different vision for the party than those who are part of the "good ole boys" network within the party. It's sort of like getting in your car with your wife to go to a concert. She wants to go left at the corner and you want to go right. The destination is not in dispute-only how you want to get there.
In this case, there is no dispute that both sides want to win elections. Steele wants to go down the center of the street; the others want to take the far right lane. Ultimately, the driver should have the final say, in this case Steele (as chairman of the party).
Anyone who drives knows how irritating it is to have a back seat driver. At every turn, Steele has acceded to their directions (demands). He has decreased his media appearances, agreed to give up control of the finances, and has been forced to accept a special meeting next week.
A press release from the RNC landed in my inbox; it says Michael Steele raised $5.1 million in February and the RNC is currently debt free; it also has $24 million cash on hand. I guess that's the good news, because the bad news is that it represents a 30% drop from last year.
Feb 2009: $5.1 million (-29%)
Jan 2009: $13.2 million (+26%)
Feb 2007: $7.2 million
Jan 2007: $10.5 million
This, ultimately, may be what gets Steele's booty kicked out of his post. If the Dittoheads stop giving, there will be calls for him to go. I wondered what black political consultant Raynard Jackson thought about the job Steele was doing so far. He sends me his op-eds every so often and I publishthemhereon the Blend, so you can get an idea of what it's like to feel like an outsider in a party in a downward spiral, seemingly unable to come to grips that we are living in 2009, not 1950. Jackson has some interesting observations (emphasis below is mine)...
Michael Steele - The One
by Raynard Jackson
Michael Steele, the new head of the Republican Party, has been in office less than 50 days and he is already being set up to be the fall guy for the state of the party. On Friday, he will be criticized for the anemic fundraising numbers for March. Mind you that he became chairman on Friday, January 30 around 5:00 p.m.
He will be blamed if Republicans lose the March 31 special house election. The seat became vacant when NY governor, David Paterson (D), appointed then congressman, Kirsten Gillibrand (D) to fill the vacant senate seat of Hillary Clinton (she was picked by President Obama to become Secretary of State).
Now, let's add a little context to the picture. As with any new chairman, Steele asked for the resignation of all the employees of the Republican National Committee. During the month of February, he had his transition team do a top-down review of the entire operation of the committee and to make recommendations on how to better run the organization.
Earlier this month, Steele began to announce his senior staffers. April will probably be the first month that he will have anything resembling a full compliment of senior level staffers in place. Then he has to hire staff to fill out the rest of the committee.
Now, let's talk about the real problem. The problem is not Steele (though he has made his share of unforced errors). The problem is the Republican Party! You can have the best party chairman in the world, but if the people don't like the product or service you are offering, then the support will not be there.
Conservatives represent about 30% of the Republican Party, but exercise a disproportionate amount of influence within the party. Even if all 20 million of Limbaugh's listeners voted Republican, it is not enough to win a national election.
So, when Michael made his comments about abortion in GQ magazine, he was being pragmatic. I have known Michael for close to 20 years and he has always been pro life. But what amazes me about my more conservative friends who went apoplectic at Steele's comments is: they are quick to say that he is a party chairman who happens to be Black (not a Black party chairman). But, when it comes to ideology, these same people claim that he is a conservative chairman not a chairman who happens to be conservative. What hypocrisy. So, let's get this straight, Steele is only chairman of 30% of the party and not the remaining 70%? This is the fundamental problem with the party, either you agree with us (the 30%) on all the issues that we care about or you are not welcome in our party (the 70%).
I always find black Republican consultant Raynard Jackson's columns interesting (he sends them via email, so I have no link). His political views as a Republican may not be in complete alignment with mine as a progressive (or for that matter as a member of the LGBT community), but it's fair to say that we agree on one thing -- the Republican party, if it is to survive and thrive, needs a serious reality check when it comes to the browning of America. It's hard to hold Dem feet to the fire without a legitimate strong alternative, reality-based party, even if it is more moderate-to-conservative. That certainly isn't today's GOP, which clings and caters to its ignorant white Christianist fringe base for support. It's why the Log Cabin Republicans don't get any traction (of course some of the self-delusion going on in that org that its party and candidates at the national level are "inclusive" makes the situation worse).
As we saw in the last election cycle, the amount of race-baiting fomented, by the Base of the GOP (and its elected officials and party hacks for that matter) was disturbing. That the RNC could elect Michael Steele as window-dressing to try to paper over the party's addiction to bigotry as an election strategy is a desperate sign that it wants to remain relevant, but they still just do not get it. Jackson, in his last op-ed, mulled whether Steele, who he knows well, will be given power to bring real change to the GOP. I personally don't think so; the party is, to be charitable, immature when it comes to handling issues of this nature.
In Jackson's latest column, reflecting on Black History Month, whether Steele and his party intend to take this moment in time to groom and attract blacks to be more than tokens, but brokers within the party's power architecture.
As a political operative, I have spent many hours meeting with senators, congressmen, governors, and mayors from both parties. My observation is that most Black elected officials that I have encountered have white chiefs of staff (the one who controls the office and in most cases the political operation also).
Should this matter? Does it make a difference? Yes and no.
I think it is critically important that when Blacks become elected officials that they position and groom other Blacks to move up the political food chain. If they don't give Blacks a chance, in most cases, a white elected official isn't going to do it. So, we then get into this circular reasoning that goes like this: "you are a great person, but you just don't have the experience." They don't have the experience because no one gives them the opportunity to gain it. That's why I am so amazed at the number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus who have white chiefs of staff, even though they represent a majority Black district.
Does this mean a white person can not do a great job? Not at all. It means that Black elected officials should and must be more aware of the impact they can have on the next generation by providing opportunities to get requisite experience for bigger and better jobs.
Many of my white Republican colleagues see the answer in simplistic terms of Black and white. "We don't see color," according to them. They are looking for the best qualified person. In a perfect world, I would agree with them. But how can you represent a district or state with a 25% Black population and not have any Blacks on your staff? They are either color-blind or just blind to people of color. I would be glad to refer them to an eye doctor. These are the same ones who will tell a kid he doesn't have the right experience, but yet not willing to give him the opportunity to get that experience.
Every so often an op-ed from Republican political consultant Raynard Jackson hits my inbox and I post about them ("Black Republican consultant scorches Virginia GOP" and "Op-ed on black Republicans tells it like it is."). I wondered when he might comment on the election of Michael Steele to head up the RNC. Given that some of the worst race-baiting in memory occurred in the last election cycle, it's no surprise the party was scrambling to figure out how to handle opposing the first black president. It almost elected a stone-cold color-aroused candidate, Katon Dawson, who, quite frankly, would have made it very easy to dismiss the Republican party for a long time to come -- Dawson was a member of an all-white country club until last year.
I called Steele's ascension "window dressing." Essentially Raynard Jackson, who knows Steele, fears this could be the case as well.
I have known Michael Steele for many, many years and consider him to be a friend. I have watched him persevere through many ups and downs. His will to succeed is unquestioned. Becoming chairman was the easy part.
Managing people's expectations of him and his chairmanship is the more difficult task. Black Republicans are going to expect him to right all the wrongs in the party when it comes to their participation. Whites are going to expect him to be colorblind.
...Steele is not the Black chairman of the party. He is chairman of the party! But, they are not mutually exclusive. The main reason he won the race for chairman is the party needed a fresh face and a good communicator. On that basis, Steele was far and away the best candidate. But, there is another reason that you won't hear discussed in polite company. The Obama effect.
Republicans were terrified of having a white party chairman criticizing the first Black president of the U.S. This is a silly argument if the criticisms were based on issues, not innuendo ("palling around with terrorist"). This was the sentiment expressed to me by several members of the national committee after Steele's election.
I understand the political realities of this thinking, but the visual of Steele criticizing our first Black president makes me a little uncomfortable. Even if it is done totally on the issues. This is the PR side of me. Steele has to be extremely careful of how he navigates between the Black and white worlds of Republican politics.
And quite frankly, that's why I feel for Steele on some level. He's got an awful job ahead of him and it's pretty clear the base of the party, as well as some of the fossilized racist thinking in party leadership, are likely to rebel against any concrete moves by Steele to change things. More below the fold.
During last year's presidential election, Alaska governor Sarah Palin infamously accused Barack Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists." Of course this was an outright lie. So, after last Friday's press announcement that she was resigning her position as governor, one might rightly conclude that she has been "pallin' around with incompetence." But, in her case, this much is true.
