GOP Rebranding 101

Old: Republican Party
New: Tea Party

The most recent major rebranding success comes in the form of the non-existent "Tea Party" and it's supposed wins in the mid-term elections.

(click to enlarge)

Why would the Republicans need a rebranding?

"Trickle Down Economics"
After 30 years of conservative fiscal policies the average income of the bottom 90% in America from 1980-2008 increased 1% compared to the previous increase of 74.6% from liberal fiscal policies 1950-1980.

War in Afghanistan officially nation's longest war
Yeah, Vietnam can be argued to have started in 1961 but it wasn't official until 1964. By that measure our war in Iraq began in 1991. And there's still no end in sight for Afghanistan or Iraq.

Largest Redistribution of Wealth in Nation's History
An all around awful plan by a Republican Treasury Secretary signed into effect by President Bush.

And so many more things like: lying to get us into Iraq then bungling both wars for years; Hurricane Katrina failures of leadership; the Terri Shiavo fiasco; under-equiping troops at war; moral hypocrisy of Vitter, Craig, Ensign, Sanford, Foley and others; spying on all Americans and granting Telecom immunity from the Constitutional protection of privacy; legitimizing torture as an American value; unaccounted billions of dollars lost to war profiteers; attempting to privatize Social Security... and on and on...

So, with this much needed rebranding how legitimate is the "Tea Party" as an actual political party? Let their own words speak for themselves:

"When a group lists themselves on our website, that's a group," Mark Meckler, a founding member of the Tea Party Patriots, told the Post. "That group could be one person, it could be 10 people, it could come in and out of existence – we don't know."

It will be interesting to see if the new Tea Party has succeeds in reversing the comically obscene failure of "fiscal conservatives" to do anything but inflate the federal debt and size to record levels each time they're in power. My money is on them forgetting what they stood for once they have power.

Blackwater: "Compliance Challenges?"

(click to enlarge)

Blackwater CEO Erik Prince said: "our company has experienced remarkable growth in the last few years, this growth, our work for the U.S. Government around the world, and the nature of the services we offer have created compliance challenges."

By this he means:

Blackwater shipped 900 weapons to Iraq without the paperwork required by arms export control regulations, one department official said. Some of the weapons are believed to have ended up on the country's black market.

That's one hell of a "compliance challenge" Mr. Prince.

Blackwater employees are also the subjects of a Justice Department probe into the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nisoor Square on Sept. 16, 2007.

Winning the hearts and minds one bullet at a time.

On a related note, there's been some outrage from the right-wing lately about a comment President-elect Obama made,

"We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

The response has been interesting:

"A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship. We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

Where have these people been while a massive private military force has been taking over the role policing abroad and at home? Their outrage at a vague proposal by Obama sounds a little hollow after the past six years of silence over the emergence of a massive army for hire.

Security for profit means insecurity becomes needed for increased profit.

Where is the right's outrage when it is needed?