I am still waiting for any takers on the challenge I posed twice, and no one has bothered to take me up on it. While I wait for a response, chew on this:
I attended Frank Luntz’s dial group of 30 undecided–or sort of undecided–Republicans in St. Petersburg, Florida, last night…and it was a fairly astonishing evening.
Now, for the uninitiated: dials are little hand-held machines that enable a focus group member to register instantaneous approval or disapproval as the watch a candidate on TV.***
In the next segment–the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee’s college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants–I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, “After all, these are children of God,” the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s). These Republicans were hard.
But there was worse to come: When John McCain started talking about torture–specifically, about waterboarding–the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. “I don’t have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11,” said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.
Meet the Republican base.
The Briscoe Kid
Someone should tell John that the men who killed 3000 people on 9/11 are already dead.
Oh please. How is this astonishing?
I love the smell of torture in the morning.
I’d like to think that the perpetual outrage machine would accuse these people of being Democratic plants, but I expect that they’ll instead be embraced as true Americans.
Facts, once again, display a liberal bias.
As for the waterboarding quote, he seems to be talking about Osama Bin Laden. Does this moron think we’d need to actually torture Osama to get a confession out of him? He’s already confessed to the crime. He’s even sent copies of the confession across the world, over and over again. He’d be the easiest conviction in the history of criminal trials.
Another day of this shit? Damnit wingnuts.
When will the crazy wingnuts learn that just because Dems asked some questions doesn’t change the fact that their stupid pack of candidates gave some fucked up answers. And that’s what this is really about.
yeah, i was wondering that myself. apparently, its much simpler; just assume that every person the army brings in for ‘questioning’ is the one responsible for 911 and have at it. random iraqi cab driver in the wrong place at the wrong time? oh, he’s totally the mastermind behind 911, torture his ass.
There are many, many people who are just petty assholes with no compassion, no empathy & nothing guiding them but malice. When I lived in Central PA, I worked with 4 people who were basically insane. One was a uber-religious conservative, one was an ex-Democrat conservative curmudgeon, another was a rascist sexist jerk & the last was a young dittohead who called me a commie for thinking a flat tax was a bad idea. They led me to realize two things:
1) Thank goodness the political power of most people is just one vote,
2) Even though I disagree with 95% of what the Republican party stands for, most of the national platform seems pretty even tempered compared to those co-workers.
The comments by Mr. Shevlin at the end of the quote highlight one of the disturbing aspects of the pro-torture stance. It isn’t about getting information so much as just getting painful revenge. Hurt them, someone, anyone for the terrible wrong done to us. Does it matter one bit who gets tortured & hurt in our quest for vengence? Does it matter if they had anything to with 9/11 or the insurgency or Al Qaeda? Assuaging our anguish & anger by hurting others must make them feel better. I’m surprised there hasn’t been a run on animal shelters for dogs & cats to whom they could realize their need to hurt living things
The only thing they’re undecided about is who they hate more – people who don’t hate brown people enough, or people who won’t torture.
Well, we’d have to catch him first. And that’s not way up there on the priority list.
But I’ll still suck his cock if I can keep my “contrarian liberal” cred [/Joe Klein]
Ah seen people waterboardin’! They did it in Gidget Goes Hawaiian! What’s tha big deal?
It’s also worth pointing out that in the last Dem debate, the wingnuts were ANGERED when it came out some Dem partisans asking the debate questions, instead of it being wide open.
Now, you had a republican debate where it looks like some Dems asked questions, and THAT is an epic crime against humanity.
What happened to that spirit of bipartisanship?
It always surprises me that the same gaggle of people who refuse to believe the government is competent on anything are the same people who are willing to believe that just because someone has been accused of terrorism, it’s necessarily so.
I don’t think these people are going to understand the concept of “error” or “malicious denoucement by a neighbor” until their own sad asses are dragged away to be tortured.
(Setting aside the fact that torture just plain doesn’t work and there are some very very good reasons why it had–until now–dropped out of the Western legal tradition.)
Typical. If the candidates looked bad, it can’t be because they’re bad candidates. It’s GOTTA be a liberal conspiracy.
No need for a trial first, or anything inconvenient like that, to determine if he actually killed 3,000 Americans — right, Mr Retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer?
I hate to give credit or a link to Sully, but he has a great post drawing a straight line from the fetish for torture in the rump dixie-authoritarian GOP and history of lynching.
Luntz’ panelists are the children and grandchildren of people who conducted torture, murder, and mutilation as public entertainment. And they are immersed in a political culture based on nostalgia. Nice.
I believe that John, Tim and Michael have already shown that cops are trained to shoot first and ask questions maybe, what’s the big deal?
Church donation baskets should have, embroidered into the straw with a flowery design, inspirational messages such as “Jesus was crucified. Waterboarding is pussy shit.” and “This loot’s the Lord’s. Po’ folk can suck it.”
John , you should drive the Wingnuts (more) insane by peppering “Illegal Children of God” into every sentence you write concerning immigration!!! :)
Grumpy Code Monkey
I know there are LEOs who aren’t also raging assholes. I was once arrested by a couple of the nicest cops you’d ever meet. But they seem to be the rare exception.
So this guy’s attitude doesn’t surprise me at all.
The rest of the group, though…brrr.
Peggy Noonan provides a partial response, with her key objection appearing in the last excerpted paragraph:
I did NOT know all of the following, until now:
1) one man flew all 4 planes
2) that man is/was still alive to torture
3) 3000 Americans died on that day
BTW, doesn’t waterboarding sound like something they do in Hawaii on days with big surf?
Best Line I’ve read in MONTHS…pure genius.
Any indication that such a youtube was submitted to the Democratic debate? I could see that being played, and I could see some of the candidates handling the question pretty well.
It certainly would not be a ‘gotcha’ question. The idea that CNN is out there looking out for the Democrats is pretty damn silly – you can’t prove it with a hypothetical, and citing Our Lady of the Dolphins does not help your argument much.
Wow – Peggy’s off in fantasyland again, I see.
And, par for the course for her, she’s lying about which questions the Democratic partisans were. They can’t slough the KJV wacko off fast enough, can they? No surprises that Peggy wants to shut her eyes to that one though – the KJV types are generally uber-hostile to Roman Catholics like Pegs.
Mr. Shevlin, by your logic, you should be glad that I DO have a problem with pouring water on the face of a man that drug a black man through the streets to his death or beat and strung a gay man to a barbed-wire fence and left him for dead.
Well, I like the Republican base. Why would I say such a thing? Because I’m a lifelong Dem, a progressive, a social liberal, and I can’t think of a better advertisement for the ideas I like and the policies I want than the Republican base. A demographic of mean, dumb people who think torture is okay and think that the earth is 6000 years old and that Terry Schiavo could have gotten her Masters degree if only the courts would have let her attend school.
My worldview and ideas aren’t perfect, but what’s a few imperfections when compared to the sheer lunacy and sociopathy of my adversaries? I love to see them and hear from them and watch them make asses of themselves.
Right now I think we are sitting on the threshold of a 10-30 year Democratic Party lock on Washington DC again, and it’s all thanks to the Republican base. Lord knows, we Dems couldn’t have done it by ourselves.
I fully agree with ThymeZone re the current Democratic party and its base:
Shorter Dug Jay: “I’m rubber, you’re glue….nyah, nyah, nyah!”
I couldn’t agree more.
The current crop of future voters are trending overwhelmingly Democratic. The mere mention of ‘Republican’ makes the majority of them gag. As long as they turn out to vote, things will be looking up.
The left-wing radicals are not the ‘Democratic Base’. Right-wing radicals are the republican base – if Frank Lutz thinks so, who am I to argue?
Sorry, Dug Jay.
Some of the comments on Klein’s post are hilarious, like this:
Joe’s learning! Usually when he finds himself in a room full of 30 Republican extremists he thinks he’s found sources.
When I saw that headline, “Dialing the Republicans,” I thought this post was going to be Joe’s description of how he gets his “facts” before writing a column.
These idiots are gung-ho about “waterboarding” and “torturing the terrahists” because never ever ever ever in a million years could they think the same tools be used against them.
Can someone pound some history into the brains of these nitwits?
well, we responded to 9/11 by invading iraq, didn’t we? apparently it’s part of the GOP mindset. someone hurts you, hurt someone else who had nothing to do with it.
Nothing sadder than a spoof who has had his virtual balls blown off by a fact bomb, is there?
And you’ll keep waiting. Since you became a traitor changing parties, you don’t get the latest memos. If you did, and you still believed in The Math where you feel the right answer, everything would be clear.
Yes, reliable patriots like Malkin and her ettes such as the esteemed RS directors thought on balance the debate was good while they were watching it. But they’re among the first to know their eyes and brain can lie without proper guidance.
The new memos cover this. In this debate, assume each of those questions were asked by an identical twin in exactly the same manner. Word for word, inflection, tone, everything. Presumably the candidates would have responded the same way. The debate would have had the same benefit for the candidates and party.
But here’s what transcends that. One twin’s party loyalty is not certain. The other twin worships his R-card. Actions like stating a question exactly the same doesn’t matter. One twin is evil, the other is good. One twin is a terrorist, the other a patriot. You must fight the evildoers. See, the math is easy when you know to ignore the objective answer and go with the one that feels right.
Sully’s right, but I wish he’d apply a fucking mirror to himself. He simply can’t connect the dots. Although given Sully “scholarly interest only” embrace of the Bell Curve, it’s not a surprise.
His love of Reagan and unwillingness to admit that Sully himself, and his Republican heroes have always engaged in coded and non-coded race-baiting is one of Sully’s biggest blindspots.
I think a lot of moderate Republicans unwillingess to own what theyr own party actually stands for actually props up the Republican party. Witness John Cole. For the first year or more when I posted here he would regularly say “well, this republican BS is ridiculous, but c’mon, it’s not like the Republican party I know stands for this”.
Of course, it did.
I doubt it.
After all, these are the same people that only a two decades after Reagan left office re-wrote him as the messiah of America. What they consider to be history is shaped by their ideology – not what actually happened.
The stuff bolded in your blockquote makes sense. This is the new millennium Republican party. It’s now the Party of Bush. The Party of Victims. Brat and angry victim mixed together.
No. (Insert standard Atrios attrib here.)
Thanks for posting this TZ, I couldn’t agree more. Nothing would please me more than for Republicans to embrace their true selves. Dance with the devil and the devil don’t change. The devil changes you.
That Republicans have been able to fool the media (“we’re the party of the common folk”) and the public for so long (along with general Democratic incompetence at selling themselves) has kept Republicans in power far longer than one would expect, given what they actually believe in. In fact, that the Republicans have been able to convince the public that the “common man” is a white, gun-toting, NASCAR-loving suburbanite who hates taxes in the face of massive demographic diversity is in itself a “miracle” of sorts.
Sign me up for more Republican candidates like the current presidential crop. I suspect Republicans will continue to have success in the deep south, or really white areas out west, but otherwise they’re going to lose every other demographic.
These right wing extremists, who are all that’s left of the Repub party, make up roughly about 25-30% of the country.
These are the same kind of people who supported Adolf Hitler’s rise to power when Hitler began rounding up gays, infirm, union leaders and newspaper editors.
Today’s right wingers try to blame Hilter on “mamby, pamby, liberal appeasers”, but the dirty truth is that America’s right wingers are the ones who helped create him. They were kindred spirits. We’re seeing that first hand today.
For most of my 45 years in existence, I was always puzzled as to how the German people could have allowed and embraced a monster like Hitler. It was a riddle to me that I just couldn’t figure out. Now I understand fully both why I couldn’t figure it out before and why I can now. Back when I couldn’t understand how the German people allowed Hitler to rise to power, I was living in the United States of America as it used to be. Now that I understand how Hitler rose to power, I’m living in an America that is starting to resemble Nazi Germany, with these 25%er right wing ignorant racists who support needless war, torture, racism, biased propaganda.
Watching the Repub debates, one thing stands out as clear as a bell to me, if the Repubs had a candidate just like Adolf Hitler, he’d win hands down. That’s what this Repub primary is all about, the search for the next American Hitler.
Noonan writes well, which almost disguises the fact that questions about the confederate flag and biblical literalism aren’t anywhere near as heated as abortion.
I don’t think her comparison holds water, unless someone firebombed the Creationism Museum and I didn’t hear about it.
LOL. Gee, weren’t the other guys confidently predicting something similar after 9/11 for the elephants? They just knew it to be true too.
Yes, good observation. And a thought provoker …
First, the “religious” component of the base set out deliberately a couple decades ago to fool the media and the voters. They openly planned and carried out “stealth” candidacies that pretended at being moderate, or deflected from their real agendas, in order to get elected and gain footholds of power. You can see the stealth tactics at work today when you watch court and other nominess being “questioned” by Congress. They will lie through their teeth to conceal their real intentions.
Second, the media is extremely easy to fool. They are suckers for the churn and mudslinging and the “human interest” aspect of politics, suckers for ratings, and patently incompetant at basic journalism. One of my favorite examples of how bad they are is watching them, right now as we speak, talking with straight faces about whether this or that candidate is “acceptable” to “christians” or has a firm enough grasp on his bible.
It’s as if this little part of the Constitution …
.. didn’t even exist.
WTF? Seriously, WHAT.THE.FUCK. people, how can you sit there and tease these debates and this election with this religious horseshit?
Give it up, John.
The problem is, it’s not the ‘gotcha’ question you keep insisting it is. First, as has been noted, the gays/military question (and the amount to time CNN devoted to it) was out of place in a GOP primary debate – which is why it took an advisor to the Clinton campaign to ask it.
Second, as you know, attempting to shift focus to the “fairness”(?) of the questions serves only to sidestep the fact that CNN managed to give coveted question slots in a Republican debate to OUTSPOKEN SUPPORTERS OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.
Why? No real sinister reason. It’s just what nonliberals have been noting for years: A roomful of Democrats (the CNN newsroom) aren’t too familiar with the concerns of the average Republican (which is different from the cartoon Republicans identified by commenters, who seem heavily influenced by The Daily Show/Colbert.)
So, as I tell my Republican friends who want me to take on opponents of the Iraq War: No thanks. You have to know how to pick your fights. The CNN debacle is a loser for Democrats.
Shouldn’t that be “had his virtual testicles shocked by the electrodes of fact?”
Are the candidates so puny intellectually and so submissive and so timid that they can’t just say that and move on?
“I’m sorry, I don’t that’s a question for our debate.”
That’s what they are relying on mealy mouthed lawyers like you to do for them, isn’t it? And why? Because they don’t want to shed light on the fact that they are hiding behind bigotry gays, winking at bigotry toward gays, in their own political machinations? So, they’d rather pretend, behind your skirt, to be huffy about “the question” rather than just face the issue squarely.
Right? That is what you meant, right?
At the time Guantanamo was first set up I was still A Libertarian Who Voted Republican, and I sent out outraged e-mails to family and friends about how awful and un-American Gitmo was. Got back outraged e-mails telling me I didn’t understand how awful the terrists were and how we had to be tuff to save the Greatest Country Ever Invented or we’d hafta wear burkas. That’s when it became obvious to me that the Republicans had seriously lost their way…not to mention their marbles. It still shocks me.
That is at least the fifth shifting rationale for the horror, oh the horror, of the Republican debate. Which is it, people, what exactly has your panties in a wad?
Sorry CJ, I think I misread the thrust of your post. I take back the “mealy mouthed lawyer” remark.
And I am sending you a coupon good for a free carwash.
It’s amazing what percentage of Americans are perfectly willing to throw away 900 years of established law and tradition in order to feel “safe.”
Can we just move all these bed-wetters to a few states somewhere in the middle of the US, build a big fence around it, and leave them alone?
Take you idea to its natural conclusion. The Republicans will not be making a comeback because in 30 years, the U.S. will be less than 1/2 white. So the real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state. Soon those 30% of the population that currently votes Republican will be voting in the Democratic Primary and they turnout much better than core Democratic groups.
Also, what will the U.S. be like when the general election is a moot action that is just to rubber stamp what has already happened in the Democratic Primary.
Also, you should ask yourself who will be the big losers are out of the current Democratic core groups. Seeing how progressives are supporting open borders and unlimited immigration and how Obama was savaged for using a homophobic gospel singer, I would say that African-Americans could be a big loser as the U.S. becomes a one party state.
I remember thinking the same thing in 1992 when the Dems swept congress and the White House. And it didn’t last but two years. Why? Because what the GOP & talk radio excel at is manufacturing outrage – not a good recipe for governing, but an excellent tactic for turning people against the government.
Think about it for a minute – Rove’s job of making people simultaneously anti-government and pro-president is a tough order; it’s much much easier to just beat the anti-government drums. And if the Dem do sweep house, senate and president (which seems almost inevitable) the GOP has their playbook already written. Bottom line: don’t expect it to last 10 to 30 years.
Awww… Repubs gots to go home with the ones what brung em.
Seriously, you will never see politics in America like what we’ve seen over the last two decades again. They’ve shrunk their coalition by running their party like a corrupt police state, and now all that’s left are a bunch of elements that are all mortally embarrassed by each other. They’re over. Twenty years from now, we’re as likely to see the US having Democrats and Greens as their major parties as we are to still have Republicans around. Their brand is tainted and their end is nigh.
There’s just enough life left in them to make it worthwhile to get some popcorn to munch while we watch them circle the drain.
Well, the fact is that these people won’t be subject to torture: they’re white Republicans, after all (though those two Latinos in the survey should know better). The whole point of torture is to punish the Other (i.e., brown/non-christian/librul), not the people who support the regime.
Actually, now that I think about it, these people are probably correct in their support of torture and the right-wing christianist regime: if Romney or Rudy were to be elected, wouldn’t you want to be on the winning team? By rabidly supporting the right-wing and its policies, they’re sort of placing a hedge bet against being disappeared, tortured, etc., etc. (and let’s face it, non-military age German nationals who could pass as white had a pretty decent time circa. 1941).
It only works if you’re a white christian republican, tho’, and won’t work for folk like me. Oh well.
The Republican party can always fit the role of reformers and whigs, and there is no reason a non-sociopathic GOP can not revive itself and have an important or even dominant role in the future.
Evangelism is very prominent among immigrants, legal and illegal, from Central and South America. In a generation these folks will make a large chunk of the petit bourgiousie that has a natural home in the Republican Party. They will find natural allies on Wall Street, among conservative Catholics of various ethnicities, and among reasonable libertarian-inclined westerners. And the dominant power of the Democrats will, before long, lead to scandals and abuses and the spirit of reform will find a home among the republicans.
There is even another George Bush coming along who needs just another 15 years of seasoning and grooming to pick up where Poppy left off. Half- Hispanic, conservative Catholic, preppy officer in the JAG reserves.
All this takes is a few years, and a willingness to dump the loonies and overt fascists.
“That’s what they are relying on mealy mouthed lawyers like you to do for them, isn’t it? And why? Because they don’t want to shed light on the fact that they are hiding behind bigotry gays, winking at bigotry toward gays, in their own political machinations? So, they’d rather pretend, behind your skirt, to be huffy about “the question” rather than just face the issue squarely. Right? That is what you meant, right?”
WTF? Take a breath, TZ. I’m not a lawyer and no one is “relying” on me for a damn thing. This issue is important to you. It’s just not a priority for most Republicans. (You know, about HALF of your fellow countrymen and women?)
It’s a nice topic for the General Election. Not difficult at all to “face squarely.” CNN just got ahead of itself trying to make the GOP look bad, and incite passionate partisan reaction such as yours.
What you are describing is something like the Federalist Party, which was revealed as traitorous by the Hartford Convention, and was going to lose out due to the expansion of sufferage even in its base in New England.
A thorough airing of the crimes of Bush Inc. might be a similar death blow to the Republican brand name, but some sort of conservative party that is Republican in all but name will be revived. And I don’t see the sort of apocalyptic demographic shift that the Federalists faced happening to the conservatives. It would be nice, certainly.
Nuh-uh! Those were Hitlery’s minions dressed as Republcans and trying to make them look bad!
I know the morally vacant, the cowards, the hypocrites will always be among us, but any political party that is dumb enough to cling to them (Why?), to shape their policies to keep such people happy (Seriously, why?) deserves the inevitable extinction event.
I feel sorry for people like Chafee who finally had to quit and Gilchrist who’s still hanging on even though he’s an outcast in his own party, but they aren’t going to get the GOP back.
A PSA: You feed the troll, you keep the troll.
No problem. I’m probably a mealy mouthed something…just not a lawyer.
Uh, not just kindred spirits, they funded him. Look up the history of Ford, IBM and other industrial giants. They were actively supporting the German military machine up to and during the early years of the war.
Shorter Republicans: Everything is the opposite of what we say.
I won’t confidently predict any kind of permanent Democratic majority for two reasons. One, nothing is permanent. Two, Democrats have demonstrated an amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s not just parliamentary procedure issues, it’s a massive nationwide failure to sell the Democratic agenda to people. People already actually believe in what the Democrats support/propose (read the polls on issues), but they’ve been convinced otherwise by both the aforementioned Dem failure and Republican success at demonizing Democratic proposals.
For example, “Tax and spend” isn’t a bad thing. It’s good fiscal policy to support programs people want (as contrasted with borrow and spend). But America believes it’s what Dems stand for and that it’s bad policy. The failure of Dems in even solidy blue states like WA to gain support for a progressive income tax (and elimination of regressive sales, gas, etc. taxes) is another classic example of what I’m talking about.
If Dems could do three things to ensure continued victory it would be: better “gamesmanship” in Congress; never, ever backing down/accepting Republican attacks; and better marketing of their own ideals.
Convince people of the fact that they already are Democrats (and that’s a good thing to be proud of) and Republicans lose their most potent weapon.
Why is it out of place? Surely you allow for the possibility that there are independents out there watching the debates, even ones who live in states with open primaries, that might be swayed one way or another by primary debates. There are people who cross party lines in open primaries and in the general. Do people not view primary debates without some thought as to whom they’ll vote for in a general election? Regardless of who asks the question, there are people out there who are undecided who just might be interested in hearing the answer to these questions. They might be interested in hearing the rationale, even if they already know or suspect the candidates support DADT.
Primary debates do not occur exclusively for the benefit of registered party members. The entire country has a vested interest in who the parties nominate.
My brother had this mindset with respect to his little brother (me)…
oh, I’m sure The Base (which is ‘al-Qaeda’ translated to English…) has far more compassion for animals than human beings with brown skin.
Questions for the “REPUBLICANS ARE RACISTS AND HATE THE POOR!!” brigade:
1. Does a principled position opposing benefits to children of illegal immigrants exist?
2. Was enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law the right or wrong thing to do?
Well, I like the Republican base. Why would I say such a thing? Because I’m a lifelong Dem
I wish I could agree with you, but those Republicans make up about a third of the electorate.
If enough “moderates” stay home and enough Democrats are confused into voting for the other party’s guy (like in 2000) the loyal Republican crazies can easily, easily carry the day.
Oh, and let’s not forget the power of disenfranchisement (also like 2000). Soon half the country will be white? So what? As long as Republicans keep purging black, brown, etc. people from the voting rolls, they will have a chance.
It is hard for the leadership of the Democratic Party to convince the middle class that they really believe what they say when they: (1) send their kids to very white, elite private schools, (2) send their children to elite, very white private universities, (3) live in very white, elite neighborhoods, (4) own multiple houses all of which are in great places with very few minorities, (5) pay lawyers and accounts to limit paying taxes, (6) limit the amount of contributions to charity that they make (Remember Al Gore’s comment about having kids in private school), (7) use armed body guard to protect themselves and their families (8) travel by private plane.
The Democratic agenda would be much easier to sell if the leadership of the Democratic Party actually demonstrated any level of personal leadership.
“Why is it out of place? Surely you allow for the possibility that there are independents out there watching the debates…”
Sure, that’s possible. And some might even care about the issue of gays in the military. But for the vast majority of Americans who will actually vote in the GOP primary, it was bizarre to spend so much time on the topic.
Does a principled defense exist for recoiling in horror at the idea that illegal alien children are children of God and that it is sad for a thirteen year old to die trying to cross the border?
Ah, but some folks might remember the discussion of page views on Conservapedia of homosexuality. 215% of the visitors were just there for the gay sex! :)
feel free to give one good reason why. just one. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask a panel of republican candidates whether they intend to extend and support a policy created by a President they purport to loathe, but maybe that’s just me.
How long before you start calling him Clinton’s campaign manager?
Of course this mischaracterization, which you should probably attribute if you’re gonna keep posting it here, completely ignores the fact that CNN culled its chosen questions from thousands of open submissions, based on nothing more than a desire for ratings. Anyone claiming there’s anything fishy about the notion of them jumping at the chance to air a question from a gay military person doesn’t have even a vague understanding of how television works.
funny, I coulda sworn it was REPUBLICANS making abig deal out of gay issues in 2004 and 2006. I think you guys called it “mobilizing the base.”
and your posts.
because you’d look just as silly in that debate as you do in this one.
only if you guys get the bald-faced lie that these questions were “planted” to stick in the public’s psyche. Otherwise it’ll just be another comforting sweet-nothing you can whisper to each other in your neverending “the libruls are out to get us” circle-jerk.
have fun with that.
I will bite – yet to both. But with caveats:
1. since a lot of the children of illegal immigrants are US Citizens, you need to be damned careful how you do it.
2. I was and AFDC and disability administrator when welfare reform happened. Something like 8o% of my AFDC caseload came in and qualified for disability. Still, it was a worthwhile effort that needs to be revisited on a regular basis.
But there is not much money to be saved in the long run with either #1 or #2, so it is really an academic question. The fact that we waste $1,000 dollars on stupid military adventures for every $10 we waste on making sure that children don’t go hungry, the prominence of these issues do, indeed, reveal that the “REPUBLICANS ARE RACISTS AND HATE THE POOR!!”
Back in the 80s it was Rambo that captivated the imagination of the Right. Back then we saw Rambo being tortured or helping prisoners escape from torture. Today it’s Jack Bauer that captures the Right’s imagination. But in these sophisticated times, Bauer is the one who dishes out the torture.
But we are not appalled. We have great advocates of morality telling us it’s the moral thing to do. It was the renowned morality advocate Bill Bennett who, after the debate, said on CNN that Romney won hands down. Noting that Romney nailed the point that a President should never divulge the kind of torture he’ll dish out. It’s just not Presidential.
No Mister McCain, torture is not a defining issue of this country. It’s a defining issue of modern conservatism and the GOP.
Okay, to sum up, this thread exists because the GOP base thinks that a contoversial question asked at a debate that nobody watched is enough to throw America into the ditch and give the world over to the bomb-strapped terrorists.
You must suspend disbelief and imagine that the fate of the world actually hangs on such a slender thread.
Then, this whole thread is really important.
I asked a legitimate question pertaining to the whole tenor of this post.
1. Does a principled position opposing benefits to children of illegal immigrants exist?
Sounds like your answer is “no.” Also:
2.Was enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law the right or wrong thing to do?
Given that every one of those points is equally true of both sides of the aisle, are you acknowledging the general notion that Democrats are “selling” their agenda as one of concern for the “common man”, while Republicans “sell” an agenda of screwing the “common man” and that the “common man” is so effing retarded he often prefers trusting the latter to questioning the former?
I kinda agree.
Uh, no, the tenor of the post is that the Republican base wouldn’t know compassion if Jesus came and washed their feet in it. Wasn’t that the tenor of the post, or did I miss something?
I should have said, this subthread about the so-called “CNN Debacle.”
That’s right, we let the government start a useless war on false pretenses and the press didn’t even raise an eyebrow, but there’s now a “CNN debacle.”
Are ya gettin all this?
sure it does. But a) it’s often wrapped up in a heavy blanket of xenophobia, and b) this lofty principled hypothetical position falls apart when you start talking about the real world, which is where these positions eventually have to operate.
Are you seriously going to deny medical care to a dying 8 year old, regardless of his citizenship status?
Yep, here are some now self-certifying themselves as the true base during this Debategate. Here from RNC Comedy Central…
Let’s see, the very same, very smart lover of do-overs had this to say during the debate…
But today, just a day and a bit later, they’ve had time to do the math. Sometimes they’re a little slow…
LOL! Okay, some of you guys are confidently predicting their extinction. But can we keep a few of them? It’s not easy to come up with comedy like this. It’s in their DNA.
and to your hidden third question:
I can vote for and respect somebody and still disagree with and even loathe some of their policy decisions.
that’s allowed over here.
Maybe we can just keep the DNA locked up someplace secure. I’d be afraid, though, that someone would retreive it and misuse it in some “Jurassic Park”-like experiment which would go horribly bad.
Oh oh, the dials on the GOP focus group just went into negative numbers.
Fuck the kid! Protect America!
“…feel free to give one good reason why. just one.”
I think I did. The amount of time that CNN devoted to the issue was wildly out of proportion to the level of interest of most primary voters.
“How long before you start calling him Clinton’s campaign manager?”
I thought he was on a Clinton advisory committee, so I called him an advisor.
“Of course this mischaracterization, which you should probably attribute if you’re gonna keep posting it here,”
You’re going to make me go find the YouTube profiles declaring their support for Edwards, Obama and Clinton, etc.? Malkin and others did it, and I think this blog linked to them.
CJ: “You have to know how to pick your fights. The CNN debacle is a loser for Democrats.”
“only if you guys get the bald-faced lie that these questions were “planted” to stick in the public’s psyche.”
Exxxxcept I specifically TOLD YOU they were not “planted” and not the result of anything sinister. Other than that, your “liar liar” retort is totally solid.
It was just sloppy work by a Democrat-dominated CNN newsroom, work that, had Fox did something similar, lefty blogs would rightly be criticizing.
Give me a break. If CNN doesn’t now what the Republican base is worried about, it only can be because Republican leaders have been talking about the wrong stuff for the past twenty years. From what I can tell from the things Republican leaders say and do, your base is worried about Terry Schiavo, snowflake babies, gay marriage, the Wars on Christmas and Terrorism, embracing Christian orthodoxy, opposing immigration, hating on the Clintons, doubling Gitmo and waterboarding. Education, health care, jobs going overseas and the trade deficit, the mortgage meltdown, high energy prices, the likelihood of recession, the declining American dollar, budget deficits – not so much. If the base is worried about any of that stuff, the Republican leadership sure isn’t getting it.
Very astute observation, good work.
Not to pile on, but I read somewhere yesterday that the Annapolis meeting had not been mentioned at the recent GOP debate. Here we are in a struggle for civilization, and the most important event — this week — in that struggle didn’t deserve a mention from these potatoheads. Illegal gardeners, yes. World peace, no.
Well said. The issue of torture was a settled matter until the current Administration decided it wasn’t.
Are we really so afraid that we are willing to compromise out most deeply held principles? Not I. The frequent appeals to probability are logical fallacy that effectively employ the use of fear to justify the disgraceful use of torture.
“I will bite – ye(s) to both. But with caveats:..”
Fair enough. I agree.
As for the “money saved…” The main reasons for controlled immigration and welfare reform are not financial. Every country has a right to control its borders (as Mexico does, aggressively), and dependence on government hurt generations of women and children.
This was sort of my point. Our elected officials are clearly non-representative of America at large. Regardless, Democrats generally have/support policies that help most people in America, while Republicans benefit 1% or less. Yet people are convinced it’s nearly the opposite (Dems support tiny special-interest groups and Repubs represent “the common folk”).
I don’t think the Dems need to “practice what they preach” as much as they actually need to start preaching.
Would it be even better if they also were shining beacons themselves of what they were offering the public? Probably, but American voters don’t seem to care. When the multi-divorced/overlapping-affair-having Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guliani can be accepted as “family values” stalwarts, clearly what the Dems actually do matters less than convincing the people of what they stand for.
I’m sorry but those are illigitmate questions for us liberals since you are a gop supporter. Personally I am shocked at the piss poor job John Cole has done in vetting his commenters prior to them asking questions.
We need to have a do- over of this thread.
The GOP, right now, is willing to go full on bear-hug with a number of mind-bogglingly stupid propositions. Denial of evolution + global-warming, support of torture and a re-embrace of “America is a (white) Christian nation” fly in the face of what reality tells us.
That they are so willing not just to casually support, but to make fundamental to their party, such wrong beliefs on the important issues of the next 100 years should tell you something about the party.
TZ, god, I hope you’re right. What I fear is that there are a lot more of those people than you think.
God doesn’t care about illegals. If he did, they’d be legal. And probably human, not aliens.
Well, I’ll admit to believing that the current Republican party is a hate group, fronting for the worst parts of America. Whether you all also hate the poor, instead of merely hating brown and beige people, people with too many X chromosomes, and people (of either gender) whose sexual proclivities run to having sex with men, I don’t know. Do you?
Which features of it? Lifetime benefit caps? Yes. Welfare to work support? No.
Did you know what causes the most injustice, the most cruelty, the most suffering in the world?
Eggs is fucking insane.
Why is it that…
The people who most forcibly assert the moral acceptability of torturing “known terrorists” are the most passionate about opposing any policy that might prevent the torture of innocent people.
Aha. The ‘don’t help those poor people, it is really bad for them’ line. A misreading of Moynahan that continues to do a lot of mischief. Better writiers than I have summarly dismissed this nonsense See Swift, John; Dickens, Charles.
And as for defending the border, we have a ‘right’ to do so, but the political elites of both parties and the financial elites clearly do not want to do so. There are good Democratic as well Republican reasons for increasing as well as decreasing immigration, both legal and illegal. That is a populist issue that just does not play along Democratic/Republican lines.
But who is trying to exploit the issue through xenophobia? That used to be a Democratic trick, and now the GOP has monopolized it. Thus, the accusation of racism sticks to the GOP.
Benny is still fighting the Cold War. He is a bit nostalgic, I guess.
A long view of history shows this to be silly. The problem of the Soviets were not that they were Atheists, but that they replaced religion of God to a religion of dialectical materialism. Either way, there was a dogma that allowed human life to be devalued for a great crusade of some kind. End result: great mobilization of resources and people, lots of whom are murdered along the way.
As for the Chinese Communists, they are just another Han Dynasty centralizing power by way of cultural domination. Their Atheism is incidental.
That’s because by definition anyone the Republican party declares an enemy combatant or terrorist is guilty.
Why do we even need trials anymore, that’s my question.
No, today’s right-wingers claim that Hitler was a radical leftist. Really.
“… the tenor of the post is that the Republican base wouldn’t know compassion if Jesus came and washed their feet in it. Wasn’t that the tenor of the post, or did I miss something?”
It was. And I was seeking to determine how much thought went in to such charges by asking if you folks could conceive of any other reason why so many Americans support the “conservative” views on immigration and the poor BESIDES lack of “compassion” or “racism” or any other buzz words. I wanted to know if you acknowledged there could be legitimate stances other than the left’s.
“From what I can tell from the things Republican leaders say and do, your base is worried about..”
Which is why it’s dangerous to get all of your political information from partisan blogs and TV shows.
So you asked a bullshit loaded question about children of illegal immigrants. Bravo.
The “C” in your handle doesn’t happen to stand for Cassidy, does it? He was pretty good at the concern troll game too.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about illegal immigration. There are no legitimate reasons to recoil in horror at the idea that they are human. Unfortunately, few Republicans seem to be able to take a pragmatic view on this without pandering to the xenophobic crowd. I think McCain is probably the best of the lot.
There are legitimate reasons to support welfare reform and encourage self-sufficiency. But conservatives do not care about the working poor and they exhibit an astonishing lack of empathy for working people. Conservative policies increase economic disparity. From opposing minimum wages, to opposing subsidized child care, to SCHIP, to NAFTA, they have increased the burden on the poor no matter how hard they work, they have stagnated the middle class and even the highly educated. The very tippy top of the economic ladder has benefitted.
So, look, I respect your trying to be here with an alternative viewpoint and be non-trolly, but give me some substantive examples of how the Republicans are not a bunch of rich folks lacking empathy for 99% of America and I’ll respect you a lot more.
Ask the next guy who says that if they know whether Neville Chamberlain was the leader of the Socialist or the Liberal Party. I have never seen a mouth-breather give the right answer to that question.
Yes, but that’s what atheism is by definition.
When selecting a Presidential nominee, are the GOP primary voters worried only about who appeals to the Republican base, or do they also give consideration to who might win in a general election, pulling independents and Democrats over? Because the former is pretty poor political strategy with a high probability of failure, but I don’t think that’s the only consideration. You have got to be cognizant of crossover voters.
CJ: 1.Does a principled position opposing benefits to children of illegal immigrants exist?
“sure it does. But a) it’s often wrapped up in a heavy blanket of xenophobia,”
Then explain how one can take this principled position WITHOUT the left’s charge of “xenophobia.” I can think of no example when the left allowed grown-up debate on the issue without resorting to buzzwords.
“Are you seriously going to deny medical care to a dying 8 year old, regardless of his citizenship status?”
Of course not. The issue here was free college. So, what’s the non-xenophobic way to reduce such incentives for people to enter the country illegally?
The Other Andrew
I love how CJ is complaining about Republicans being mischaracterized in a thread that started with a post about a random group of Republicans liking torture and not liking programs that help poor people.
Way to shift the goalposts, CJ.
Surprise! My question was really about college education subsidies. I have noticed that there is often a lot of pushback to the proposals to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition privileges. It is usually articulated along fairness issues (who is paying the taxes to support this subsidy) and not usually using Tancredo-esque scare tactics.
Actually, yes. I think some people are legitimately concerned about declining income levels and illegal workers taking jobs – particularly in construction – that used solid middle class jobs. I don’t think illegal immigration is at the root of middle class decline, and so I don’t think that addressing it will solve the problem, but it’s a legitimate concern.
At the same time, I doubt Republican leaders give a crap about this aspect of the issue. After all, the GOP leadership is happy enough for Mexicans (or Chinese) to take American jobs as long as they stay put. So when I hear Republicans proclaim concern for the middle class, I tend to check and see if my wallet’s still there; most of what they’d do to help the middle class is incidental to their mission to make sure the rich get richer.
First you need to explain why it’s an incentive to allow children of illegals to go to college. Did that 13 year old girl die in the desert clutching a rosary because she was trying to get to UVA? Do people brave the wildfires to try to cross the border so their baby can go to college in 17 years? Of course not. It’s a matter of survival. As long as the daily wages in Mexico adjusted for buying power are about $10 a day, people are going to risk their lives to get here. If “free college” were an incentive for illegal immigration, then people from all over the world who have to pay for college would come here, right? But they don’t. They come from Mexico, and Central America, and to a lesser extent China, Haiti, etc. Desperately poor countries where you often cannot feed your family no matter how hard you work. Now that’s an incentive. Raise the living standards in developing countries and you have achieved non-xenophobic reduction of illegal immigration. I’m not saying that’s the only way, obviously, but this premise of college education for the children of illegals encourages illegal immigration needs to be questioned and supported.
“Aha. The ‘don’t help those poor people, it is really bad for them’ line. A misreading of Moynahan that continues to do a lot of mischief. Better writiers than I have summarly dismissed this nonsense”
Oh. You really believe that? That is stunning. At the least, then, I hope you’ll consider people like me as ill-informed, rather than simply “anti-poor.” ‘Cause I really believe it.
“But who is trying to exploit the issue through xenophobia? That used to be a Democratic trick, and now the GOP has monopolized it. Thus, the accusation of racism sticks to the GOP.”
First, there will be no lectures on race from anyone belonging to the party looking to Al Freakin Sharpton as its leader on the issue. Also, no lectures from anyone siding with the leading opponent of controlled borders, The National Council of The Race.
Finally, I’d like to see an example of “non-xenophobic” proponents of tighter immigration controls. If the left acknowledges any, I haven’t seen them. (Some environmentalists, maybe.)
Wait, this is the Catholic church you’re talking about?
Uh, doesn’t EVERYONE include greater enforcement of illegal immigration in their immigration proposals? It is part and parcel of comprehensive immigration reform, we have to deal in a pragmatic matter with the millions of people already here, while acknowledging that the current levels of illegal immigration are not sustainable and that no one wants less secure borders. I think that is pretty much the Democratic party line, am I wrong?
“The Nazis were really called the National-Socialist German Worker’s Party, Moonbat. Can’t you read?”
That kind of thing.
“I can vote for and respect somebody and still disagree with and even loathe some of their policy decisions. that’s allowed over here.”
You can respect someone whose issues you think lack principle? I find that hard to believe. That’s why I see no “respect” displayed on this blog for conservatives (or the reverse on many conservative blogs for liberals.) That’s why conservatives aren’t just wrong – their ‘evil and insane.’ I know that’s pretty common on the Internet, but I don’t think you can take that approach and still portray yourself as having retained enough civility to show “respect.”
I know I’m just a visitor, but that shit really kills political discourse.
CJ: And I was seeking to determine how much thought went in to such charges by asking if you folks could conceive of any other reason why so many Americans support the “conservative” views on immigration and the poor BESIDES lack of “compassion” or “racism” or any other buzz words. I wanted to know if you acknowledged there could be legitimate stances other than the left’s.
“So you asked a bullshit loaded question about children of illegal immigrants. Bravo.”
They were about as “unloaded” as questions can be: is there such a thing as a principled “conservative” stance on the two issues at the top of this post. Some say “yes” and some say “no.” I think liberals have plenty of principled stances that are just wrong. Liberals tend to see no principle in right-leaning positions. Just selfishness and racism. So, you know, no need to think critically of any liberal position. It’s a major weakness, I think.
“C” is not for Cassidy.
Well, we don’t see many real conservatives. We see mean spirited sociopathic people who pretend at conservatism, but actually support a government and a party that walks over the face and private parts of real conservatism.
Is there a real conservative in the house? Show me, been here three years, haven’t met him yet.
Welcome back, Darryl. BIRDZILLA was looking for you.
Shortened for clarity.
The reason you probably respect McCain for his stance on controlling the border is because he wasn’t really for it. He was for Bush’s “comprehensive” immigration bill that focused on illegals already here, not securing the borders. Which is OK, but that’s the only reason it seems he escaped the Scarlett “X.”
“There are legitimate reasons to support welfare reform and encourage self-sufficiency. But conservatives do not care about the working poor and they exhibit an astonishing lack of empathy for working people.”
It’s pretty easy to admit that self-sufficiency is important and the make the OTHER side to all the heavy lifting in actually encouraging it. I wouldn’t want a libertarian government, so I’m glad liberals are pulling from the left to prevent it. But I don’t want socialism either, and the only ones consistently resisting it are on the right.
Subsidized day care? There is a downside to the historic shift from parental care to professional care. It’s often necessary, but it’s obviously…different. There should be voices trying to promote parental care as much as possible.
“So, look, I respect your trying to be here with an alternative viewpoint and be non-trolly, but give me some substantive examples of how the Republicans are not a bunch of rich folks lacking empathy for 99% of America and I’ll respect you a lot more.”
Well, I’m an example. I exist! I exist! I got hundreds of dollars from the Bush tax cuts, probably because I had kids. I don’t know anything about the following site, but he’s not the first to note that the “bunch of rich folks” stereotype is outdated:
**This map of the most recent census data (for 2003) shows an interesting divide: Blue States are those whose median income for a family of four exceeds the U.S. median of $65,093, while Red States are those whose median income is less than the U.S. median
I think Dems have gotten the bulk of the “very rich” vote since at least 2000.
In short, there is a line up to which subsidies are necessary, and beyond which they hurt. Most Democrats and Republicans are debating where the line should be. Oh, and conservatives believe that a significant, unacknowledged part of modern poverty is due to the unprecedented experiment with single-parent households, and think that subsidizing this disastrous shift is not good for families, especially children.
“Way to shift the goalposts, CJ.Surprise! My question was really about college education subsidies.”
Geez, Xenos, the college subsidies was in the post that STARTED the whole thread. Goalposts unchanged.
Uh, you as a personal example of a Republican was not really what I was looking for. More like a policy that they have supported that actually helps people who are trying to climb up the economic ladder?
I have kids and have probably gotten “hundreds” (oooo) of dollars from the Bush tax cuts too. But since their share of the debt is several thousand now, I don’t really consider that a fair trade.
This reminds me of the non-sarcastic and more heroic version of this question was given on the Senate floor by Teddy Kennedy excoriating the reukes for not wanting to raise the minimum wage. “What is it about working men and women that Rebublicans find so offensive?” (probably not an exact quote, but close)
Well it’s obvious. They’re poor.
“Actually, yes. I think some people are legitimately concerned about declining income levels and illegal workers taking jobs – particularly in construction – that used solid middle class jobs. I don’t think illegal immigration is at the root of middle class decline, and so I don’t think that addressing it will solve the problem, but it’s a legitimate concern. At the same time, I doubt Republican leaders give a crap about this aspect of the issue. After all, the GOP leadership is happy enough for Mexicans (or Chinese) to take American jobs as long as they stay put.”
On what planet is that notion unreasonable? That you come here when you want to be an American citizen, not simply find work?
Since we’re talking parties and motivations…could the left’s stance on open borders have anything to do with the fact that Mexican immigrants ultimately vote….Democrat?
I millions of white, French speaking, GOP-voting Canadians were pouring over the northern border, would you be so “compassionate?” Honestly.
Oops, “…that Republicans…”
That would be wrong.
“Uh, doesn’t EVERYONE include greater enforcement of illegal immigration in their immigration proposals? It is part and parcel of comprehensive immigration reform, we have to deal in a pragmatic matter with the millions of people already here, while acknowledging that the current levels of illegal immigration are not sustainable and that no one wants less secure borders. I think that is pretty much the Democratic party line, am I wrong?”
You’re right. Part of the party line. But not acutally a policy. The bill was bogus in that regard, that’s one reason it blew up. Just do border control first, path to citizenship second and it’s not a problem.
Uh, I don’t think Canadians typically align themselves with the American right wing, and I don’t think illegal immigrants can vote.
Could the right’s stance on deporting 12 million people have anything to do with their being….forners? I have 2 legal immigrant friends who speak fluent English and work in public service jobs who have been heckled in public by complete strangers to go back to where they came from. Did those mouth-breathers check their green card or citizenship papers before harassing them or did they base it on the fact that they were brown-skinned and speaking Spanish?
“Is there a real conservative in the house? Show me, been here three years, haven’t met him yet.”
Why don’t you list a few, acceptable “real conservatives” then so we can see what you’re talking about.
CJ- you posed the question as one of ‘benefits’ generally. I was not the only one who understood you to be referring to benefits, generally speaking.
But then, since people I agree with on some issues happen to include Al Sharpton, I must not lecture. You laid down the law on that one, Bwana.
Well, Jen, you said the GOP was a bunch of rich bastards and I showed you that, actually, it isn’t. There’s me, and all of those Red states out there for you to ponder.
As far as “climbing the ecomomic ladder…” It is almost impossible to remain poor in this country if you 1. graduate from high school and 2. get married before you have children.
When the left lends cultural and economic and political support to policies that undermine the above, they are NOT showing compassion. They are doing what makes them feel good.
Going by memory, but I believe the top one percent voted for Gore in 2000.
“Welcome back, Darryl. BIRDZILLA was looking for you”
Uh oh…more references I don’t get.
“Uh, I don’t think Canadians typically align themselves with the American right wing, and I don’t think illegal immigrants can vote.”
Don’t play games. I didn’t say “illegal” immigrants…just people entering the country who would, ultimately, vote when legal. Just a hypothetical to see how pure your motives are.
You can still lecture, but with guys like Sharpton in your corner, it’s going to be taken with a grain of salt.
Look, the premise of this is that Republicans lack empathy and compassion. I think this is going to cost them votes and be a loser for them. Economic disparity is at its highest point since the 1920s and people are dissatisfied with the direction the country is taking and at their inability to find and keep good jobs with benefits and health insurance, despite no failings of their own. It isn’t about just not being poor, and you misstated that old canard trio, it’s graduate from high school, wait until you’re 20 to have children, and be married. But is it nearly impossible to go without health insurance, to live paycheck to paycheck, to have no retirement, no savings, no benefits, and no house if you’re a married high school graduate over 20? Nope, it’s quite likely.
So you can hold onto these ideas all you want, just don’t be surprised at the sea change that is going on. There was a very telling poll a few months back about the percentages of people who think the government should be more involved in helping people. In 12 years, the numbers are nearly the inverse. It went from something like 65-35 against to the inverse in just 12 years.
That tells you something about a government that has let people down. So go to blogs all you want and spread your good cheer, but the election is going to be a wake up call for you guys. You can change your attitudes about your fellow human beings and start living some of that Christianity and basic human kindness, or your party can wither and die on the vine.
You can still lecture, but with guys like Sharpton in your corner, it’s going to be taken with a grain of salt.
Go ahead and call him nigger, Bwana. Why use his name?
You can still lecture, but with guys like Sharpton in your corner, it’s going to be taken with a grain of salt.
Go ahead and call him nigger, Bwana. Why use his name?
You can still lecture, but with guys like Sharpton in your corner, it’s going to be taken with a grain of salt.
Go ahead and call him nigger, Bwana. Why use his name?
Woh. John, you need one of those thingies haloscan has for multiple clicks.
Yes, that is true. But that’s a very limited definition, and I don’t think anyone is arguing that most Republican voters are in the top 1% of the income bracket. The general trend has been that the more money you make, the more likely you are to vote Republican. There is an income level where that changes, but it only represents a small percentage of voters. So it’s fair to say that, on average, voters with more money are likely to vote Republican.
Wow. Worshipper of patron-saint St. Ronnie, the race-baiter preaching about race-sensitivity. This has got to be a first.
Let me get it straight:
I am left of center;
Al Sharpton is left of center;
Al Sharpton is an anti-semitic, race-baiting creep,
Sikufuata (I do not follow), Bwana. Please delineate what fucking chain of logic is going on here, because you left basic logic so far behind that the doppler shift is moving that sucker to such a low frequency that only elephants can hear it.
It’s your identifier, you go first. Surely you know what you meant when you said it?
“You can change your attitudes about your fellow human beings and start living some of that Christianity and basic human kindness, or your party can wither and die on the vine.”
I’m not very religious, but I think about “my fellow human beings” constantly. I honestly think my approach is better for people than yours. Your problem is, you think people who disagree with you are just repeating “canards” and spreading “good cheer.” Your mind is slammed shut to alternative views. Mine is open. It has to be. I don’t watch Fox and I work when talk radio is on, so I constantly hear my views challenged by the mainstream media industry. You don’t.
I think 2008 will be a great year for Democrats, but not for any deep meaning you attribute. It’s about Iraq and the fact that Republicans have been in control for awhile.
If you think waiting until you’re married to have children is an “old canard” we just disagree. And I know the left has invested a huge chunk of credibility in proving that the shift to single parent homes hasn’t been a disaster. That’s fine. But I hope you have a little more insight to the thinking of your fellow Americans who make up half of the two-party system.
I think John Cole, for a prominent example, gets a lot of respect here.
CJ: You can still lecture, but with guys like Sharpton in your corner, it’s going to be taken with a grain of salt.
“Go ahead and call him nigger, Bwana. Why use his name?”
You’re right, Sparky, anyone who has a problem with that race-baiting jackass MUST be Bull Connor reincarnated. Can’t possibly be another way to look at it.
“It’s your identifier, you go first. Surely you know what you meant when you said it.”
Uh, let’s start with the easy ones: George Will. William F. F. Buckley…are they insane racists?
“Let me get it straight: I am left of center; Al Sharpton is left of center; Al Sharpton is an anti-semitic, race-baiting creep, thus: ???”
Thus, your party of choice clearly has a racist element among its base. Your national candidates must kiss the ring of this racist to have a chance. It means you should be careful when making sweeping judgments about the party of others. Very careful.
“Yes, that is true. But that’s a very limited definition, and I don’t think anyone is arguing that most Republican voters are in the top 1% of the income bracket. The general trend has been that the more money you make, the more likely you are to vote Republican. There is an income level where that changes, but it only represents a small percentage of voters. So it’s fair to say that, on average, voters with more money are likely to vote Republican.”
Probably. But the reality is far different from the liberal stereotype:
**This map of the most recent census data (for 2003) shows an interesting divide: Blue States are those whose median income for a family of four exceeds the U.S. median of $65,093, while Red States are those whose median income is less than the U.S. median
George Will is a political hack, a whore. I don’t consider him an exemplary “conservative” but simply a slavish supplicant to the Republican party. A guy who thinks he is an expert on baseball but probably throws like a girl.
Buckley is an erudite and entertaining character, a genuine icon of popular conservatism even though one would be hard pressed to associate an actual worldview and coherent ideology with him. But he is smart enough not to fall for things like the Iraq war purple finger scam and the phony War on Drugs and other “right wing” favorites.
Are either of these guys insane? Don’t know. I’d say it’s quite possible, yes. Are either of them racists? In Buckley’s case, I’d say that he reminds me of Kissinger, in that he’d be in favor of perpetuating an unfairness or sociopathy as long as there were justification for it.
Both of your examples are total devotees of Ends Justify Means thinking, policy, and values. As Buckley himself would admit if pressed intellectually, EJM isn’t compatible with democracy. Ultimately, it will destroy any government scheme. Will isn’t smart enough to figure that out, but he would say so if he thought it made him look good on tv.
Only if you’re claiming that the stereotype is that people in red states make more money than people in blue states. You’re giving information on states, not individuals, and I think that most people are thinking about individuals. Apples. Oranges.
What? Nothing about St. Ronnie the race-baiter? Now, There’s a true conservative. The people whose dick Republicans like CJ love to suck till the end of time.
And these pricks will teach me about race-sensitivity. More than 50% of self-described conservatives exhibit overt racism or wink-wink-nod-nod St. Ronnie-style racism. The rest have long since left the Republican Party, and registered independent.
“That you come here when you want to be an American citizen, not simply find work?”
Like Bush’s ‘guest worker’ program?
CJ, while I yield to none in my disgust at the Democrat’s willingness to continue kissing Al Sharpton’s oversized rump, the fact remains that the Democrats pander MUCH less to black racists than the GOP still panders to white racists. As for the relative tendencies of the two parties to pander to religious bigotry: I think that one answers itself.
ThymeZone: Some of us are old enough to remember how George Will got his start in 1973 — as a National Review columnist who shocked everyone by devoting virtually every column to thundering, from the very start of the Watergate affair that spring, that Nixon was unquestionably a criminal and should be impeached and removed. This eventually got him canned from NR, but it made his reputation for the rest of his life (starting with his seemingly lifetime sinecure at Newsweek). Unfortunately, the older he gets the more he hitchhikes on it. During the 1980s he was still noteworthy for making glowing references to FDR (for which Buckley lambasted him), for flaying the Christian Right, and (despite having dinner with the Reagans) for making frequent genuinely pointed comments about Ronnie (particularly about his penchant for pumping up his popularity artificially through deficit spending at the expense of his successors). When Clinton showed up, though, Will’s independent judgement seemd to go winging right out the window, and he became a drearily predictable GOP flack. (This may have been due to the fact that at about that time he married Bob Dole’s former campaign director.) He seems to have gotten a little of his mojo back lately, at least when it comes to attacking Bush’s Iraq policy — maybe his marriage is falling apart?
George Will is dismissed by stealing an old SNL gag, and William F. Buckley is quite possibly insane?
You proved my point.
I disagree completely. In 2007, only one of the two major parties gets away with practicing overt racial politics, and it ain’t the GOP. Mike Nifong didn’t appeal to racial stereotypes – successfully – because he was trolling for Republican votes.
Indeed. It is a vanishingly small and insignificant component. Now for the racist component making up around 25% of the GOP, that acts as kingmaker each election cycle… that is a considerably bigger problem.
You jerks bought yourselves your ‘revolution’ with the solid south. Now you have wrecked the revolution, and you are stuck with the jerks. Tough crap all around for you. You do not mitigate your situation by puffing up Al Sharpton into some sort of influential character.
Is William F. Buckley an insane racist? Great question. Let’s ask the man himself. Over to you, Brad:
Or, as SATSQ would put it: “Is William F. Buckley an insane racist? Yes.”
Oh, and while we’re invoking Brads, here’s another Brad memorializing a particularly vile bit of Buckley bile:
So, is William F. Buckley an insane racist?
**Thus, your party of choice clearly has a racist element among its base.
“Indeed. It is a vanishingly small and insignificant component. Now for the racist component making up around 25% of the GOP, that acts as kingmaker each election cycle… that is a considerably bigger problem.”
Now, how did your arrive at 25 percent? Reaching back nearly a half century to describe the modern day GOP is kind of lame. Al Sharpton is influential in the Demorcratic Party. And he has clones in every city. Support for the black mayor of Phildelphia, in a close race for re-election in 2003, went through the roof when it was revealed City Hall was being investigated by the feds. Just blame the racist GOP. After the election, when the corruption was revealed, the media and (most) Democrats admitted it probably wasn’t nice to play the race card. Plenty of similar examples across the US (see Nifong, Mike). Don’t think you can find something as overt with the GOP. Not because they are morally superior, but because the media wouldn’t let them get away with it.
You allege to be a resident of the planet Earth, but I am getting very skeptical about that.
Both parties have racists. In the Democratic party you get jokers like Sharpton, who are considered an embarrasment by the rest of the party. The GOP overt racists get elected to the Senate. Enormous effin’ difference, and not something your march of anecdotes is going to wash away.
“So, is William F. Buckley an insane racist? Yes.”
Insane? A half-century-old opinion on constitutional law and civil disobedience and the now-obvious limits of court-ordered desegregation? Nothing from say, the age of color TV, at least? He’s had quite a body of work you can pick through.
Seriously. It’s not irrelevant, but he’s had a lot to say on race in the 80s and 90s that would better reflect modern conservatism.
Don’t be silly. Republican nurturing of bigotry toward gays is a direct descendant of what you are talking about. Treating the powerless as niggers and pretending at moral superiority is the whole schtick upon which the Southern Strategy was based. Where do you think the irrational resentment, the hatred of government, and the distrust of process and courts and judges and science all comes from? Do you think these ideas erupted from nowhere? They were, and are, cultivated deliberately.
How else would you get a whole demographic of people who care nothing for other people to get riled up about something called “right to life?” With hearts and flowers?
“CJ – You allege to be a resident of the planet Earth, but I am getting very skeptical about that.”
OK, here come the personal insults. Keep trying to dismiss Sharpton as a joker, but he represents the views of the most reliable Democratic voting block. And I don’t think Al Gore would have sought out an audience with him before running in 2000 if the party considered him an embarrasment. The next Democratic official to repudiate him will be the first.
I say again, in 2007, only one major party gets away with overt racial politics and it is the Democrats. Keep in mind, many people consider false claims of “racism” to be racist politics, so we could have a field day picking apart the exploitation of Katrina, the 2000 Florida election fiasco, the revolting 2000 NAACP James Byrd ad, the Duke rape hoax, the 2003 Phila. mayoral election, the myths of Jena, La.,…it goes on.
You don’t see these in the context of racial politics because you’ve never had to. The NY Times never had to answer for its atrocious, inaccurate, race-baiting Duke coverage. Nor did the local Democrats, or Duke liberals or anyone who played racial politics. That’s why so many liberals can act as if it’s still 1967, and not 2007.
“How else would you get a whole demographic of people who care nothing for other people to get riled up about something called “right to life?”..”
Right. Because abortion is such an easy call. Only an irrational nut would have qualms about legalizing it. (I happen to be pro-choice.) And the 10th Amendment? Limits on government power? Just an excuse to bring back slavery and creationism.
The fact is, Democrats and their supporters can stand behind a podium and say “Vote Democrat, ‘those’ people are trying to keep you down.'” They appeal directly to race. Black Democrats, Hispanic Democrats can appeal openly to race and ethnicity, and white Democrats are fine with it, because it gives them power.
I started this discussion with the modest attempt to not even prove the superiority of a particular ideology, but to determine if you people even thought there WAS another legitimate ideology besides your own. Not to see if you favored a particular side of the political spectrum, but if you even believed there WAS a political “spectrum.”
You asked a question — is William F. Buckley an insane racist. I proved he was. You don’t get to pick which piece of his work I use to prove it; I get to do that.
The point stands: “Is William F. Buckley an insane racist? Yes, unquestionably”.
Oh, and, yes, I have other pieces of Buckley bile stored away. Like you say, he’s got a long and well documented history of exploiting hatred, in many forms.
Meh. I have fifty bucks that says you are DougJ in drag.
Actually, back in 1957 Buckley wrote a now-infamous National Review editorial in favor of maintaining a prohibition on the rights of Southern blacks to vote, on the grounds that they were “too ignorant” to be allowed to take charge of their own destiny. By the late 1960s he was, mercifully, starting to change his attitude on that, and by the early 1980s he had changed it drastically — although his magazine (then, according to its alumnus Garry Wills actually under the editorial control of its Wallace-admiring publisher William Rusher) was in 1978 still printing cute little poems comparing Martin Luther King to Father Divine and announcing that Earl Warren deserved to go to Hell because he wanted the South “to INTEGRATE” (quoting the poem, capital letters and all).
But back to the main subject, which is the extent to which the GOP still plays up to white racism. Most definitely it does — that, after all, was the whole point of the famous Southern Strategy (or, in Goldwater’s immortal words, “going hunting where the ducks are”, the ducks being white Southern racists).
Since then, of course, racism has drastically diminshed in the South as everywhere else — but then, in the South it had nowhere to go but down. There are still a lot more white racists left in this country than black racists, and the GOP still gets lots of mileage out of appealing to them — it’s just now that it’s done sotto voce (as with Reagan’s 1980 campaign-kickoff speech defending “states’ rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi, or those more recent Confederate Flag-based gubernatorial campaigns). At this point, though, the GOP’s explicit appeals are more to religious bigotry (which of course has also always been particularly beloved in the South because of the Old South’s open hostility to intellectualism, which in turn had origins so obvious that I don’t really see the need to describe them here).
And as for those Democrats announcing that “these people are trying to keep you down”: while accusations of racism are these days frequently the last refuge of a scoundrel, the facts remain that a lot of people ARE still trying to keep the majority of American blacks down. But at this point they’re trying to keep them down more on an economic-class basis than a direct racial basis — God forbid that the poor (including the working poor) should receive any significant aid from the rest of the populace (which, you’ll recall, was one of Klein’s key points in the quote that kicked off this whole thread). And the poor are still disproportionately black.
Wow, astounding how stupid those folks are, how dare they refuse to answer a “so when did you stop beating your wife” question.
Well, I’ll vote for your candidate Cole, as long as they raise taxes upon you to pay for my health care.
We will both probably be dead when your ‘friends’ hawkings come to pass; I sure would like to piss on your grave when your petulance comes home to roost.
Note to Balloon Juice readers;
If you gain your wish (dem victory), Cole will turn against your newly elected leftist government in an instant. (unless he really adords the totalitarianism he pretends to abhor.)
Most probably, he will go silent.
For that is what the petulant does… when they win their pyrrhic victory.
Unlike Bain re: present times, Cole will object. He has yet to pump any big govt, etc “librul” causes. Humanity, yes he’s espoused that. If you were handy I’d piss on your head so that you knew what “tinkle down economics” are. You ain’t got the intellectual ammunition to start a pissing contest on Balloon Juice.
Re: Selling Democrats:
It is only a mock up, but replace with actual people and I think it’s worth pimping.
CJ, you want principled left opposition to illegal immigration, go visit my place, I have to warn you it is aggressively left. It is a tad more than “just a blogger” since I have actually run for national office – House.
BTW re:Sharpton, I am a member of the Democratic Party of Oregon and I really don’t remember any Sharpton clones getting any attention here…
CJ since you seem to be trying to play somewhat straight with the material available to you, I won’t call you a fucking idiot, but you need to work a little harder at your source material. There are still a few reasonable Republican sites around – you’ll have to look real hard though.
Fixed in honor of Lee Atwater.
Oh, Christ, that’s funny. Do you also think the Republicans have gotten the bulk of the black vote?
Yea, he objects, but he has sold out (a la Sullivan) because he did not get his way.
Endorsed, No, but given who he is not supporting, he’s leaving the door wide open for those he professes to oppose.
Oh no, Cole only petulantly supports the “humanity” aspect – it merely gets him what he wants.
I’ve been pissed upon many times before – and by both sides. Whereas the right pisses on me, they at least dont try and tell me it’s gatorade, its good for me, and I ought to be thankful.
Balloon Juice has become nothing more that a leftie circle jerk.
**The point stands: “Is William F. Buckley an insane racist? Yes, unquestionably”.**
Let’s put 100 reputable political historians in a room and ask them if they agree with your quote. I’ll take that bet any time.
Chuck: I checked out your site and, yes, you offer a principled opposition to illegal immigration. Good to know the Dems have voices like that out there. Let’s not pretend such voices get much respect in the party, or the Internet. (Such as this blog.)
And I wouldn’t expect too many Sharpton clones in Oregon. Only a “fucking idiot” would.
TR: Fixed in honor of Lee Atwater.
That was the “anonymous” interview Atwater was supposed to have given to a college professor in 1981. The prof sat on it during the Reagan years. During Bush 1 years and Willie Horton. And revealed it to the world, in a book, in 1999. Kind of odd.
But who’s arguing that the GOP never played racial politics? We all know they have. It’s widely, repeatedly reported. The challenge is getting you folks to acknowledge that Democrats also play racial politics, usually without having to answer for it. It remains the only major party to practice overt racial politics. Liberal politicians don’t campaign in black churches to find god. And Latino Democrats didn’t join MEChA to celebrate culture.
“I think Dems have gotten the bulk of the “very rich” vote since at least 2000.”
TR: Oh, Christ, that’s funny. Do you also think the Republicans have gotten the bulk of the black vote?
Actually, I was corrected. The Dems got the majority of votes among the top 1% wage earners in 2000, but I don’t know about 2004.