Quote of the Day 2

“Both Rick Santorum and James Dobson, the former deity of Focus on the Family, had endorsed Sanford’s opponent. If the religious right can’t beat Mark Sanford in a Republican primary in South Carolina, can it win anywhere?”

Frank Rich on former SC Gov. Mark Sanford’s primary run-off victory Tuesday night for his old House seat.

The Inmates Will Run the Asylum If Mitt Wins

From “Why Todd Akin hurts Mitt Romney,” Bill Schneider, Politico:

“It’s bad enough for Republicans that Akin has put the Missouri Senate seat at risk. And threatened the Republican campaign to win a Senate majority. And introduced a highly divisive social issue into the GOP campaign. And shifted the debate away from jobs and the economy, where President Barack Obama is vulnerable. And highlighted the inconvenient fact that the Republican platform calls for a total ban on abortions with no exception for rape. And opened up a split in the party between mainstream conservatives and the religious right.

Akin is also making Romney look weak and ineffectual. If Romney doesn’t have clout with members of his own party, voters may ask, how can he be an effective president?

Conservatives like Akin are not afraid of Romney.  It’s not even clear that they respect him.

“Conservatives tolerate Romney for one reason:  He stands a chance of beating Obama.  Once he’s elected and a Republican House and Senate are in place, conservatives believe Romney’s job will be to sit down, shut up and sign whatever legislation the GOP Congress passes.

And stack the administration with staunch conservatives.  ‘Personnel is policy,’ they used to say in the Reagan administration.  House Republicans, who consider themselves the vanguard of the tea party revolution, have already made it clear:  They will set the Republican Party’s agenda, whoever the president is.

“You can’t tell a president to go to hell.  But that is effectively what Akin is saying to a would-be president.”  Emphasis added.

Mitt himself is bad enough.  What inevitably comes with him is far worse.  He would do anything to hold off a primary challenge in 2016.

Andrew Sullivan Weighs in on Mitt and Ric Grenell

From “The Muzzling of Ric Grenell,” Andrew Sullivan, The Dish:

“He’d been part of organizing a conference call to respond to Vice President Biden’s foreign policy speech,now known best for the “big stick” remark. So some reporters were puzzled as to why Grenell…was not introduced by name as part of the Romney team at the beginning of the call, and his voice completely absent from the conversation. Some even called and questioned him afterwards as to why he was absent. He wasn’t absent. He was simply muzzled. For a job where you are supposed to maintain good relations with reporters, being silenced on a key conference call on your area of expertise is pretty damaging. Especially when you helped set it up.

“Sources close to Grenell say that he was specifically told by those high up in the Romney campaign to stay silent on the call, even while he was on it. And this was not the only time he had been instructed to shut up. Their response to the far right fooferaw was simply to go silent, to keep Grenell off-stage and mute, and to wait till the storm passed. But the storm was not likely to pass if no one in the Romney camp was prepared to back Grenell up. Hence his dilemma. The obvious solution was simply to get Grenell out there doling out the neocon red meat – which would have immediately changed the subject and helped dispel base skepticism. Instead the terrified Romneyites shut him up without any actual plan for when he might subsequently be able to do his job. …  And it’s a mark of Romney’s fundamental weakness within his own party that he could not back his spokesman against the Bryan Fischers and Matthew Francks.

“A couple other thoughts. How many gay conservatives oppose marriage equality – now, apparently, a litmus test (though it wasn’t for Cheney)? I cannot think of any. … So if all gay Republicans who support marriage equality are banned even from speaking on other topics entirely (like Iran or Afghanistan, where Grenell is a fire-breather), who’s left? The answer, I’m afraid, is no one. Grenell was prepared to stay silent on gay issues entirely and do his job. But that wasn’t enough. Romney’s anti-gay agenda is therefore deeper and more extreme than Bush’s.

“I might add that the private conversation among many Republicans in this town is that this was unjust and unfair. The Romneyites are correct when they say they tried to talk him out of it. But they kept and keep their views quiet. The gay-inclusive elements in the elites simply do not have the balls to tackle the religious right. And this is particularly true of Romney, as this case now proves. The Christianists gave Bush a pass on social issues because of his born-again Christianity. They trust Mormon Romney not an inch. And this week demonstrates without any doubt that Romney will therefore not be able to deviate from their wishes an iota. He has no room to maneuver. The notion that he could be a moderate on social issues in office is, alas, a pipe dream.

“Remember: Grenell was told to be silent solely because he was gay. He was accused in National Review of being a potential fifth columnist for Barack Obama, simply because of his support for marriage equality, which he was never going to speak in public on anyway. His job was to speak on national security, a job for which he was very well prepared and very, very neoconservative.

“But the bigots won.”  Emphasis added.

Scary Michele Bachmann Story

You must read Frank Schaeffer’s  8/9/11 post on AlterNet, entitled “Michele Bachmann Was Inspired By My Dad and His Christian Reconstructionist Friends — Here’s Why That’s Terrifying.”  It is much scarier than anything Stephen King ever wrote.  Read it with a chocolate bar in one hand and your old teddy bear in the other.  While we’re fighting the Muslim extremists overseas, it’s the Christian extremists who are plotting to destroy our country and way of life.  And Michele Bachmann follows these folks.