When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: “Who cares?”…

The RNC is consistent. So is Steele. I am guessing Steele doesn’t like hurtful talk about his brothers. I am guessing the RNC is trying to get the Limbaugh crowd to trust them again by using Limbaugh rhetoric without the brains of a Limbaugh

Limbaugh was told ‘get over it’. Steele, the non Limbaugh was told ‘who cares’ by the crowd who is more Steele inside than Limbaugh

What this jackass strategy will do is normalize the word ‘Socialist’ as a Dem moniker in the same way it is used in mainstream Euro parties. ‘Socialist’ will go from an adjective of the Soviet repressive state, to a proud progressive title as re-titled Dems take pride in a title bestowed by the crowd they hate

And the RNC isn’t even conservative

Meanwhile, the RINO-NC could give themselves a ‘Socialist’ moniker as in social-re-engineering the GOP to dump religion, conservatism, patriotism, statism, pro-life and keeping the new RINO ideals of open borders, imported illegal employees, protection of the Chamber of Commerce types who prefer imported workers, outsourcing to the point no one in the USA has the money to buy the stuff they make globally, military to protect their factories, stem cells for all, euthanesia to music, and gay marriage because who cares

Lying hypocrites IMHO and doing the heavy lifting for the Dems. Pelosi is thanking the she-god right now for this RINO-NC move to push her constitutents into a new group pride

They think anyone can be a Limbaugh but they miss the point that Limbaugh is principled and intelligent. This is a disgrace. What else is new

Liberals have rebranded themselves progressives. I see no problem in rebranding Democrats, Socialist Democrats. Let’s play by their rules for a change.

I suppose it could have been worse. Instead of passing a resolution officially branding the opposition the “Democrat (sic) Socialist Party,” the RNC might have voted the GOP out of existence.
In the end, the one will hasten the day that the…

1. A rose by any other color…..

2. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck!

This would be a far more effective way to “beat the drum” than calling names.

katablog.com on May 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM

I still don’t think you understand. This is not “beating the drum”, this is the first step in tying the democrats and their policies to failed socialist policies world wide. This is not some silly name calling as you and others imply, it’s calling the democrats out for decades of creeping government takeover.

They must either deny it or accept it. Of course they will whine and try to deflect it but in the end they must say either yes or no … if they say no then they must explain how their policies aren’t socialist. They can’t

Also, socialism has a negative connotation to it precisely because every example you can cite from around the world is negative.

Socialism is a destructive force and by calling them what they actually are we can begin to tie them to it.

GENIUS post – if you don’t support the RNC officially calling the Democrats socialists, why, you must be illogical and not very willing to fight for your own survival!

Bizarro No. 1 on May 14, 2009 at 12:17 PM

No, it’s illogical because your side of the debate can’t make a coherent argument.

They’ve said it’s stupid to call Socialists by that name because everybody already knows they’re socialists: If so, what harm is there in calling them on it?

Others have said we shouldn’t do it because nobody knows what Socialism is anyway: If not, this could create an excellent opportunity to teach them.

Some have said that calling them Socialists could backfire on us: But when asked for examples how the truth could backfire the only few examples provided would actually have backfired on the Democrats, because they’d be defending the indefensible.

Your side has consistently agreed that the Democrats are actually Socialists but in spite of that have claimed that calling them on it would be “stupid”, “name calling” and “playing dirty”. If calling them what they actually are is stupid, how can we call them “Democrats” or “liberals”?

Your side is illogical because they claim that while unofficially calling them Socialists is accurate, making it official is inaccurate.

Your side is illogical because the only argument against it that makes any sense is that the Republicans aren’t the right messenger at this time, being chock full of neo-statists and crypto-socialists as they are: But openly accusing the Democrats of socialism will not only put them on the defensive but also the neo-statists and crypto-socialists in the Republican party. So unless you’re one of those, this maneuver, coupled with a reformation of the GOP, could give the GOP a push back toward Capitalism.

Stupid is right. It’s like the DNC renaming the Republican Party the Republican Nazi Party.

LODGE4 on May 14, 2009 at 9:30 AM

How are Republicans like Nazis? As for Democrat Socialists:

Wikipedia on Bernie Sanders:
Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot. Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments.

I guess the Democrats will have to explain how they are not like Bernie Sanders if they want to contest the label. They can’t do it, and they won’t want to insult Sanders by saying they are insulted by the label.

Please explain to me how calling a socialist a socialist ever helped anyone stop socialistic policies.

katablog.com on May 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Norwegian posted this earlier:

I think the RNC is right on. As an European, I can testify that the word “socialist” is indeed fitting for today’s Demcocrat Party.

Norwegian on May 13, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Yeah, name-calling, that’s what this country needs!

Lame beyond belief.

PattyJ on May 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Are you saying Bernie Sanders is using name-calling against himself? Why don’t you just embrace the label like Bernie does?

Stupid. The blue-dogs are not socialists. Way to go and alienate them from our position.

spmat on May 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Does that mean the blue-dogs will become more socialist in response to saying their party is being run by socialists? You aren’t thinking clearly. If it’s a true “conservative Democrat”, that person will admit that their party is being run by socialists.

Still more illogic and more desire to posture for our ideological adversaries than to fight for our survival here, I see. Ultimately, we’ll all be victims of socialist policies. But don’t worry! We will have succeeded in not “looking stupid” by not actually naming the policies that will destroy our country. What an accomplishment!

baldilocks on May 14, 2009 at 12:00 PM

GENIUS post – if you don’t support the RNC officially calling the Democrats socialists, why, you must be illogical and not very willing to fight for your own survival! How old are you, 8? If not, you are fooling me, because you are displaying the social (im)maturity and the reasoning (in)abilities of someone that young…

What the Michael Savage sector of the Conservative side doesn’t grasp is that if you don’t get your people elected to office, you don’t get to make policy.

Once again I’ll say: don’t hold a special meeting to agree on stating the obvious. Hold a meeting to get back on track and DO something about the socialism that we all know is taking place.

I’m dumbfounded that some of you think name calling (even if absolutely true) will help the situation we are in. Conservatives already know these are socialistic policies. Blue dogs know it’s socialism. I dare say most 8th graders know too. Those that don’t know, don’t care! Remember who the Democrat base is. Do you think they care what you call their handouts as long as they get them? Do you think the Democrats in Congress care what you call them as long as you don’t call them late for the pig trough they are wallowing in at taxpayers’ expense?

Please explain to me how calling a socialist a socialist ever helped anyone stop socialistic policies.

If conservatives are to be stigmatized as “mean” then let’s be mean on the issues, not on the labels.

Western_Civ on May 14, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Hmmmmm … by attaching “socialist” to democrat, they are addressing the issues. The democrat agenda has become increasingly more and more socialist. I don’t know what’s wrong with calling democrats “socialists” for promoting socialist policies.

Decades ago, in the early 20th century … progressives successfully rebranded themselves as “liberals”, and in the process rebranded the true liberals as “conservatives”. Those definitions have stuck to this day and have been successful for the most part in preventing the general public from seeing the true agenda of the democrats.

Liberals wouldn’t attack James Dobson with the amount of bile they’ve directed at a 21-year-old beauty contestant. It’s not just Christianity — it’s women liberals hate.

From Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso and Bertrand Russell, who treated women — mostly their mistresses — like dogs, to Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton in our own day, liberals are ferocious misogynists. They share Muslims’ opinion of women, differing only to the extent that liberals also support a women’s right to have an abortion and to perform lap dances.

You’d be better off in a real burqa than under the authority of a liberal American male.

Perhaps Steele’s strategy is

leetpriest on May 14, 2009 at 9:39 AM

This was not Steele’s idea. You are either too lazy to read, or have poor comprehension. Only you mentioned any thought of copyrighting an ideology; that’s your idea and you dissed it yourself.