After Republicans got their asses handed to them on a silver platter by a black guy in a bad economy, they immediately went into a cloistered huddle to determine why they’d fared so poorly. But given their general aversion to introspective endeavors of any kind, the soul searching lasted all of ten minutes.
Instead of coming to their senses and finally realizing that excluding folks will only lose you elections, they collectively decided that poor “messaging” was the real culprit. Or did they?
Apparently you can’t save some people from themselves.
Because now that the Illinois GOP’s move to oust state party Chairman Pat Brady is gaining traction, they seem to have no clue about the message they’re really sending to the rest of the state.
I’ve said it many times before, there are a plethora of good reasons to get rid of Brady including, but not limited to:
- He can’t win an election is a state that’s being destroyed by delusional Democrats
- He acted as Kevin Burns’ campaign chairman against another Republican
- He lost that race by 40 points!
- He doesn’t understand he’s chairman 24/7
- He undermined the very party platform over which he’s supposed to preside
But what are Illinois Republicans hanging their pitchforks and torches on? Brady’s sudden conversion on the subject of same-sex marriage.
Yes! Ostensibly speaking as a “private citizen,” Brady asked his political brethren to relent on their opposition to gay nuptials. Sheesh! The fact that he doesn’t understand that chairmen don’t get to speak as unencumbered persons is more than enough reason for me to dispense with him.
But instead of going that utterly reasonable route, the internal opposition group is using Brady’s “awakening” as a cudgel against him with absolutely no compunction about the message they’re actually sending – “We hate gay people!”
And Republicans have the nerve to wonder why they can’t win an election.
Of course, Brady’s response to the move was, “It will do irreparable harm to our brand. I don’t understand (this) but I respect the process.”
This, of course, begs the question, how can you do irreparable harm to that which has already been irreparably harmed?