Why Republicans turned on Palin
Big J
Beyond the Palin
Why the GOP is falling out of love with gun-toting, churchgoing, working-
class whites.
The conservative opinion elite is divided�irreconcilably so�about Sarah
Palin's decision to quit the Alaska governorship. One faction says good
riddance: The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer had already judged
her unfit for national office 24 hours before her announcement, and The
New York Times's Ross Douthat now refers to her "brief sojourn on the
national stage" in the past tense. On the other side, the Post's William
Kristol called Palin's quitting a "high-risk move" designed to catapult
her to greater public prominence. Taking the longer view, though, the
clash is symptomatic of the deepest strategic debate in Republican
circles since the disciples of the Reagan revolution captured Congress in
1994.
For decades it has remained a Republican article of faith: white, lower-
middle-class, "heartland" masses, fundamentally socially conservative,
were an inexhaustible electoral resource. So much so that Bill Clinton
made re-earning their trust�he called them the Americans who "worked hard
and played by the rules"�the central challenge in rebuilding Democratic
fortunes in the 1990s. And in 2008 the somewhat aristocratic John McCain
seemed to regard bringing these folks back into the Republican fold so
imperative that he was moved to make the election's most exciting
strategic move: drafting churchgoing, gun-toting unknown Sarah Palin onto
the GOP ticket.
But beneath the surface, some Republicans have been chafing at the
ideological wages of right-wing populism. In intel-lectual circles,
writers like David Brooks and Richard Brookhiser have argued for a
conservatism inspired by Alexander Hamilton, the least democratic of the
Founding Fathers, over one spiritually rooted in Thomas Jefferson, the
most democratic. After Barack Obama's victory, you heard thinkers like
author and federal judge Richard Posner lamenting on his blog that "the
face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.
Conservative intellectuals had no party."
Such discomfort has been dormant for some time. Under the influence of
philosophical gurus like Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol, the sotto voce
tradition arose of flattering the sort of voter who drove a pickup truck
even if he wasn't the sort you might want to socialize with. (Take, for
example, "jes' folks" Mark Sanford of South Carolina. Long before his
jet-setting affair, after all, he met the jet-setting, Georgetown-
educated Yankee investment banker who became Mrs. Sanford at a Hamptons
beach party.) But Palin has raised the "class" question publicly among
conservatives as seldom before.
Michael Barone, writing in March on U.S.News's Thomas Jefferson Street
blog, noted that the electorate's portion of "under-30 downscale whites"
has been stagnating, while the participation of both young upscale whites
and African?-Americans generally has spiked upward. The pool is
shrinking; thus he thinks Republicans should now focus on wooing upscale
whites, banking on their disenchantment with Obama's moves to fix the
economy. Author and former Bush speechwriter David Frum recently made the
argument, on the occasion of the split between Palin's single 18-year-old
daughter, Bristol, and the 19-year-old father of her child, that "it is
marriage that creates culturally conservative voters�and young downscale
Americans are not getting married. When they do marry, they do not stay
married: While divorce rates among the college educated have declined
sharply since the 1970s, divorce rates among high school graduates remain
ominously high." In a much-discussed blog post titled "Bristol's Myth,"
Frum cited statistics showing that white women without a college degree
are far more likely to have a child out of wedlock than their -college-
educated counterparts. He concluded that "the socially conservative
downscale voter is increasingly becoming a mirage�and a Republican
politics based on that mirage will only lead us deeper into the desert."
It was a strange argument to make. This is the kind of statistical story
liberals frequently tell: they will note that the states that vote most
heavily Republican are the ones with the highest divorce rates, teenage
births, and usage of online pornography�the highest rates of sin. They
mean to sting conservatives with the charge of hypocrisy: "See?
Conservatives aren't more 'moral' after all." Such claims, though,
misunderstand a basic underpinning of conservative philosophy: human
beings become civilized not through the absence of sin but the conscious
struggle with sin. Sin is bad; but the true offense is sin in the absence
of guilt�an indifference to the notion that there are moral boundaries
even worth recognizing. Conservatism is usually most politically
successful in religiously orthodox precincts where anxiety over the
modern-day collapse of visible moral boundaries is most evident. That
Americans sin a lot so we can't hope for them to vote conservatively is a
new claim.
Why the change? For one thing, populism has never been an entirely
comfortable fit for elite conservatives. Majorities of middle-class
Americans can be persuaded to support tax cuts for the rich�even repeal
of the estate tax�out of an optimism that they may eventually become rich
themselves. But they are also susceptible to appeals like the one George
Wallace made in the recession year of 1976. He built his campaign on both
hellfire-and-brimstone moralism and a pledge of soak-the-rich tax
policies. The elite conservative fears that the temptation to woo
working-class voters will, you know, shade into policies that actually
advantage the working class. That fear surfaced recently when Rush
Limbaugh�whom Frum himself has singled out as one of the dangerous
populists dragging the Republicans down�dismissed those who criticized
the AIG bonuses as "peasants with their pitchforks" who must be silenced
for the sake of conservative orthodoxy. But it's harder to persuade the
economically less fortunate to respect conservative orthodoxy during a
recession. That's starting to make some conservatives nervous.
Another thing that makes some elite conservatives nervous in this
recession is the sheer level of unhinged, even violent irrationality at
the grassroots. In postwar America, a panicky, violence-prone underbrush
has always been revealed in moments of liberal ascendency. In the Kennedy
years, the right-wing militia known as the Minutemen armed for what they
believed would be an imminent Russian takeover. In the Carter years it
was the Posse Comitatus; Bill Clinton's rise saw six anti-abortion
murders and the Oklahoma City bombings. Each time, the conservative
mainstream was able to adroitly hive off the embarrassing fringe while
laying claim to some of the grassroots anger that inspired it. Now the
violence is back. But this time, the line between the violent fringe and
the on-air harvesters of righteous rage has been harder to find. This
spring the alleged white-supremacist cop killer in Pittsburgh, Richard
Poplawski, professed allegiance to conspiracist Alex Jones, whose
theories Fox TV host Glenn Beck had recently been promoting. And when
Kansas doctor George Tiller was murdered in church, Fox star Bill
O'Reilly was forced to devote airtime to defending himself against a
charge many observers found self-evident: that O'Reilly's claim that
"Tiller the baby killer" was getting away with "Nazi stuff" helped
contribute to an atmosphere in which Tiller's alleged assassin believed
he was doing something heroic.
At least in the past, those who wished to represent their movement as
cosmopolitan and urbane could simply point to William F. Buckley as the
right's most prominent spokesman. Now Buckley is gone, and the most
prominent spokesmen�the Limbaughs and O'Reillys and Becks�can be heard
mouthing attitudes once confined to the violent fringe. For the second
time in three months, Fox heavily promoted anti-administration "tea
party" events this past Fourth of July�rallies in praise of secession and
the Articles of Confederation, at which speakers "joked" about a coup
against the communist Muslim Barack Obama like the one against Manuel
Zelaya in Honduras. "What's going on at Fox News?" Frum recently asked,
excoriating Beck for passing out to followers books by the nutty far-
right conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen. If you were an elite
conservative, you might be embarrassed too.
The conservative intellectuals once were able to work together more
effectively with the conservative unwashed. Now, more and more, their
recent irritation renders them akin to the Stalinist commissars mocked by
poet Bertolt -Brecht, who asked if they might "dissolve the people/And
elect another." The bargain the right has offered the downwardly mobile,
culturally insecure traditionalist�give us your votes, and we will give
you existential certitudes in a world that seems somehow to have gone
crazy�is looking less like good politics all the time.
Perlstein is the author of Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the
Fracturing of America.
============end of article
Big J
-----
Syvyn11
"Big J" <bi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C44D25AFF187...@216.196.97.130...
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/206098
Why can't you tell the truth, J?
70% of republicans will still vote for her.
There are some republicans that are against her, but those were idiots who
thought we needed McCain to go left to out spend Obama. Those are getting
fewer and fewer. THANK GOD!
wull
>
> Beyond the Palin
>
> Why the GOP is falling out of love with gun-toting, churchgoing, working-
> class whites.
>
> Palin's decision to quit the Alaska governorship. One faction says good
> riddance: The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer had already judged
> her unfit for national office 24 hours before her announcement, and The
> New York Times's Ross Douthat now refers to her "brief sojourn on the
> national stage" in the past tense. On the other side, the Post's William
> Kristol called Palin's quitting a "high-risk move" designed to catapult
> her to greater public prominence. Taking the longer view, though, the
> clash is symptomatic of the deepest strategic debate in Republican
> circles since the disciples of the Reagan revolution captured Congress in
> 1994.
>
> For decades it has remained a Republican article of faith: white, lower-
> middle-class, "heartland" masses, fundamentally socially conservative,
> were an inexhaustible electoral resource. So much so that Bill Clinton
> and played by the rules"-the central challenge in rebuilding Democratic
> Americans are not getting married. When they do marry, they do not stay
> married: While divorce rates among the college educated have declined
> sharply since the 1970s, divorce rates among high school graduates remain
> ominously high." In a much-discussed blog post titled "Bristol's Myth,"
> Frum cited statistics showing that white women without a college degree
> are far more likely to have a child out of wedlock than their -college-
> educated counterparts. He concluded that "the socially conservative
> politics based on that mirage will only lead us deeper into the desert."
>
> It was a strange argument to make. This is the kind of statistical story
> liberals frequently tell: they will note that the states that vote most
> heavily Republican are the ones with the highest divorce rates, teenage
> mean to sting conservatives with the charge of hypocrisy: "See?
> Conservatives aren't more 'moral' after all." Such claims, though,
> misunderstand a basic underpinning of conservative philosophy: human
> beings become civilized not through the absence of sin but the conscious
> struggle with sin. Sin is bad; but the true offense is sin in the absence
> even worth recognizing. Conservatism is usually most politically
> successful in religiously orthodox precincts where anxiety over the
> modern-day collapse of visible moral boundaries is most evident. That
> Americans sin a lot so we can't hope for them to vote conservatively is a
> new claim.
>
> Why the change? For one thing, populism has never been an entirely
> comfortable fit for elite conservatives. Majorities of middle-class
> of the estate tax-out of an optimism that they may eventually become rich
> themselves. But they are also susceptible to appeals like the one George
> Wallace made in the recession year of 1976. He built his campaign on both
> hellfire-and-brimstone moralism and a pledge of soak-the-rich tax
> policies. The elite conservative fears that the temptation to woo
> working-class voters will, you know, shade into policies that actually
> advantage the working class. That fear surfaced recently when Rush
> populists dragging the Republicans down-dismissed those who criticized
> mouthing attitudes once confined to the violent fringe. For the second
> time in three months, Fox heavily promoted anti-administration "tea
> the Articles of Confederation, at which speakers "joked" about a coup
> against the communist Muslim Barack Obama like the one against Manuel
> Zelaya in Honduras. "What's going on at Fox News?" Frum recently asked,
> excoriating Beck for passing out to followers books by the nutty far-
> right conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen. If you were an elite
> conservative, you might be embarrassed too.
>
> The conservative intellectuals once were able to work together more
> effectively with the conservative unwashed. Now, more and more, their
> recent irritation renders them akin to the Stalinist commissars mocked by
> poet Bertolt -Brecht, who asked if they might "dissolve the people/And
> elect another." The bargain the right has offered the downwardly mobile,
> you existential certitudes in a world that seems somehow to have gone
>
> Perlstein is the author of Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the
> Fracturing of America.
> ============end of article
>
> Big J
Talk about a terrified poster and well he should be.
Wull
Imaginary Friend
<bran...@kittylitternewsguy.com> wrote:
>Big J <bi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in alt.gossip.celebrities:
>
>> Why the GOP is falling out of love with gun-toting, churchgoing,
>> working- class whites.
>
>Because she's a lunatic and no one can spin it otherwise.
A lunatic who actually believes her own press releases. That makes her
dangerous.
-a-
"Big J" <bi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C44D25AFF187...@216.196.97.130...
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/206098
>
> Beyond the Palin
>
> Why the GOP is falling out of love with gun-toting, churchgoing, working-
> class whites.
>
> Palin's decision to quit the Alaska governorship. One faction says good
> riddance: The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer had already judged
> her unfit for national office 24 hours before her announcement, and The
> New York Times's Ross Douthat now refers to her "brief sojourn on the
> national stage" in the past tense. On the other side, the Post's William
> Kristol called Palin's quitting a "high-risk move" designed to catapult
> her to greater public prominence. Taking the longer view, though, the
> clash is symptomatic of the deepest strategic debate in Republican
> circles since the disciples of the Reagan revolution captured Congress in
> 1994.
>
> For decades it has remained a Republican article of faith: white, lower-
> middle-class, "heartland" masses, fundamentally socially conservative,
> were an inexhaustible electoral resource. So much so that Bill Clinton
> and played by the rules"�the central challenge in rebuilding Democratic
> Americans are not getting married. When they do marry, they do not stay
> married: While divorce rates among the college educated have declined
> sharply since the 1970s, divorce rates among high school graduates remain
> ominously high." In a much-discussed blog post titled "Bristol's Myth,"
> Frum cited statistics showing that white women without a college degree
> are far more likely to have a child out of wedlock than their -college-
> educated counterparts. He concluded that "the socially conservative
> politics based on that mirage will only lead us deeper into the desert."
>
> It was a strange argument to make. This is the kind of statistical story
> liberals frequently tell: they will note that the states that vote most
> heavily Republican are the ones with the highest divorce rates, teenage
> mean to sting conservatives with the charge of hypocrisy: "See?
> Conservatives aren't more 'moral' after all." Such claims, though,
> misunderstand a basic underpinning of conservative philosophy: human
> beings become civilized not through the absence of sin but the conscious
> struggle with sin. Sin is bad; but the true offense is sin in the absence
> even worth recognizing. Conservatism is usually most politically
> successful in religiously orthodox precincts where anxiety over the
> modern-day collapse of visible moral boundaries is most evident. That
> Americans sin a lot so we can't hope for them to vote conservatively is a
> new claim.
>
> Why the change? For one thing, populism has never been an entirely
> comfortable fit for elite conservatives. Majorities of middle-class
> of the estate tax�out of an optimism that they may eventually become rich
> themselves. But they are also susceptible to appeals like the one George
> Wallace made in the recession year of 1976. He built his campaign on both
> hellfire-and-brimstone moralism and a pledge of soak-the-rich tax
> policies. The elite conservative fears that the temptation to woo
> working-class voters will, you know, shade into policies that actually
> advantage the working class. That fear surfaced recently when Rush
> populists dragging the Republicans down�dismissed those who criticized
> mouthing attitudes once confined to the violent fringe. For the second
> time in three months, Fox heavily promoted anti-administration "tea
> the Articles of Confederation, at which speakers "joked" about a coup
> against the communist Muslim Barack Obama like the one against Manuel
> Zelaya in Honduras. "What's going on at Fox News?" Frum recently asked,
> excoriating Beck for passing out to followers books by the nutty far-
> right conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen. If you were an elite
> conservative, you might be embarrassed too.
>
> The conservative intellectuals once were able to work together more
> effectively with the conservative unwashed. Now, more and more, their
> recent irritation renders them akin to the Stalinist commissars mocked by
> poet Bertolt -Brecht, who asked if they might "dissolve the people/And
> elect another." The bargain the right has offered the downwardly mobile,
> you existential certitudes in a world that seems somehow to have gone
>
> Perlstein is the author of Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the
> Fracturing of America.
> ============end of article
>
> Big J
>
> -----
Palin represents those who feel powerless and have been dwarfed by all of
the "liberal" ingresses of the past 40 years; you can see it in the almost
incoherent rage that is posted about David Letterman ( a comic who said
nothing about raping a 14 year old, although that is constantly repeated)
and anything that touches on the nerve -- feminism (oddly enough); black
progress (particularly personified by Obama), "liberal" social programs, gay
rights, etc. She is a lightning rod for the inarticulate rage at what feels
like anti-progress that her admirers share. The problem with Palin, though,
is she's a poster girl for all of the blog- talk radio- anger/lies that
claim the liberal media has an agenda, blah blah.
What's really been lost, though, is a real dialogue about actual issues in
this country. People are so busy shouting about bullshit (like stand-up
comics, and gay sexual practices) that they're not addressing the real
issues of how we put the country back to work economically, how we guarantee
the "for all" part of liberty and justic and we can possible disagree as a
society about fundamental issues and find a way to find better solutions.
It's the Principle!
>
> "Big J" <bi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C44D25AFF187...@216.196.97.130...
>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/206098
>>
>> Beyond the Palin
>>
>> Why the GOP is falling out of love with gun-toting, churchgoing,
>> working- class whites.
>>
>> The conservative opinion elite is divided�irreconcilably so�about
>> Sarah Palin's decision to quit the Alaska governorship. One
>> faction says good riddance: The Washington Post's Charles
>> Krauthammer had already judged her unfit for national office 24
>> hours before her announcement, and The New York Times's Ross
>> Douthat now refers to her "brief sojourn on the national stage"
>> in the past tense. On the other side, the Post's William Kristol
>> called Palin's quitting a "high-risk move" designed to catapult
>> her to greater public prominence. Taking the longer view, though,
>> the clash is symptomatic of the deepest strategic debate in
>> Republican circles since the disciples of the Reagan revolution
>> captured Congress in 1994.
>>
>> For decades it has remained a Republican article of faith: white,
>> lower- middle-class, "heartland" masses, fundamentally socially
>> conservative, were an inexhaustible electoral resource. So much
>> so that Bill Clinton made re-earning their trust�he called them
>> the Americans who "worked hard and played by the rules"�the
>> "it is marriage that creates culturally conservative voters�and
>> young downscale Americans are not getting married. When they do
>> marry, they do not stay married: While divorce rates among the
>> college educated have declined sharply since the 1970s, divorce
>> rates among high school graduates remain ominously high." In a
>> much-discussed blog post titled "Bristol's Myth," Frum cited
>> statistics showing that white women without a college degree are
>> far more likely to have a child out of wedlock than their
>> -college- educated counterparts. He concluded that "the socially
>> conservative downscale voter is increasingly becoming a
>> mirage�and a Republican politics based on that mirage will only
>> lead us deeper into the desert."
>>
>> It was a strange argument to make. This is the kind of
>> statistical story liberals frequently tell: they will note that
>> the states that vote most heavily Republican are the ones with
>> the highest divorce rates, teenage births, and usage of online
>> pornography�the highest rates of sin. They mean to sting
>> conservatives with the charge of hypocrisy: "See? Conservatives
>> aren't more 'moral' after all." Such claims, though,
>> misunderstand a basic underpinning of conservative philosophy:
>> human beings become civilized not through the absence of sin but
>> the conscious struggle with sin. Sin is bad; but the true offense
>> is sin in the absence of guilt�an indifference to the notion that
>> there are moral boundaries even worth recognizing. Conservatism
>> is usually most politically successful in religiously orthodox
>> precincts where anxiety over the modern-day collapse of visible
>> moral boundaries is most evident. That Americans sin a lot so we
>> can't hope for them to vote conservatively is a new claim.
>>
>> Why the change? For one thing, populism has never been an
>> entirely comfortable fit for elite conservatives. Majorities of
>> middle-class Americans can be persuaded to support tax cuts for
>> the rich�even repeal of the estate tax�out of an optimism that
>> they may eventually become rich themselves. But they are also
>> susceptible to appeals like the one George Wallace made in the
>> recession year of 1976. He built his campaign on both
>> hellfire-and-brimstone moralism and a pledge of soak-the-rich tax
>> policies. The elite conservative fears that the temptation to woo
>> working-class voters will, you know, shade into policies that
>> actually advantage the working class. That fear surfaced recently
>> when Rush Limbaugh�whom Frum himself has singled out as one of
>> the dangerous populists dragging the Republicans down�dismissed
>> is gone, and the most prominent spokesmen�the Limbaughs and
>> O'Reillys and Becks�can be heard mouthing attitudes once confined
>> to the violent fringe. For the second time in three months, Fox
>> heavily promoted anti-administration "tea party" events this past
>> Fourth of July�rallies in praise of secession and the Articles of
>> Confederation, at which speakers "joked" about a coup against the
>> communist Muslim Barack Obama like the one against Manuel Zelaya
>> in Honduras. "What's going on at Fox News?" Frum recently asked,
>> excoriating Beck for passing out to followers books by the nutty
>> far- right conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen. If you were an
>> elite conservative, you might be embarrassed too.
>>
>> The conservative intellectuals once were able to work together
>> more effectively with the conservative unwashed. Now, more and
>> more, their recent irritation renders them akin to the Stalinist
>> commissars mocked by poet Bertolt -Brecht, who asked if they
>> might "dissolve the people/And elect another." The bargain the
>> right has offered the downwardly mobile, culturally insecure
>> traditionalist�give us your votes, and we will give you
>> existential certitudes in a world that seems somehow to have gone
>> crazy�is looking less like good politics all the time.
>>
>> Perlstein is the author of Nixonland: The Rise of a President and
>> the Fracturing of America.
>> ============end of article
>>
>> Big J
>>
>> -----
>
> Palin represents those who feel powerless and have been dwarfed by
> all of the "liberal" ingresses of the past 40 years; you can see
> it in the almost incoherent rage that is posted about David
> Letterman ( a comic who said nothing about raping a 14 year old,
> although that is constantly repeated) and anything that touches on
> the nerve -- feminism (oddly enough); black progress (particularly
> personified by Obama), "liberal" social programs, gay rights, etc.
> She is a lightning rod for the inarticulate rage at what feels
> like anti-progress that her admirers share. The problem with
> Palin, though, is she's a poster girl for all of the blog- talk
> radio- anger/lies that claim the liberal media has an agenda, blah
> blah.
>
> What's really been lost, though, is a real dialogue about actual
> issues in this country. People are so busy shouting about bullshit
> (like stand-up comics, and gay sexual practices) that they're not
> addressing the real issues of how we put the country back to work
> economically, how we guarantee the "for all" part of liberty and
> justic and we can possible disagree as a society about fundamental
> issues and find a way to find better solutions.
>
>
Wasn't she the one who told Hillary to stop whining? Between the
two of them, neither of which I like, Hillary has shown so much more
grace, class, and is now admired by leaders around the world. Palin
is a punchline.
--
Brandy Alexandre
Yes, the TP should always unwind over, not under.
Peace and Justice
she will not lose any Republican votes. Newsweek however is going down
the tubes, and has really lost it's credibility. Won't be around very
much longer.
explorer
news:Xns9C45A4B9...@74.209.136.93...
> -a- <hm...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.gossip.celebrities:
>
>>
>> "Big J" <bi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C44D25AFF187...@216.196.97.130...
>>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/206098
>>>
>>> Beyond the Palin
>>>
>>> Why the GOP is falling out of love with gun-toting, churchgoing,
>>> working- class whites.
>>>
>>> Sarah Palin's decision to quit the Alaska governorship. One
>>> faction says good riddance: The Washington Post's Charles
>>> Krauthammer had already judged her unfit for national office 24
>>> hours before her announcement, and The New York Times's Ross
>>> Douthat now refers to her "brief sojourn on the national stage"
>>> in the past tense. On the other side, the Post's William Kristol
>>> called Palin's quitting a "high-risk move" designed to catapult
>>> her to greater public prominence. Taking the longer view, though,
>>> the clash is symptomatic of the deepest strategic debate in
>>> Republican circles since the disciples of the Reagan revolution
>>> captured Congress in 1994.
>>>
>>> For decades it has remained a Republican article of faith: white,
>>> lower- middle-class, "heartland" masses, fundamentally socially
>>> conservative, were an inexhaustible electoral resource. So much
>>> the Americans who "worked hard and played by the rules"-the
>>> young downscale Americans are not getting married. When they do
>>> marry, they do not stay married: While divorce rates among the
>>> college educated have declined sharply since the 1970s, divorce
>>> rates among high school graduates remain ominously high." In a
>>> much-discussed blog post titled "Bristol's Myth," Frum cited
>>> statistics showing that white women without a college degree are
>>> far more likely to have a child out of wedlock than their
>>> -college- educated counterparts. He concluded that "the socially
>>> conservative downscale voter is increasingly becoming a
>>> lead us deeper into the desert."
>>>
>>> It was a strange argument to make. This is the kind of
>>> statistical story liberals frequently tell: they will note that
>>> the states that vote most heavily Republican are the ones with
>>> the highest divorce rates, teenage births, and usage of online
>>> conservatives with the charge of hypocrisy: "See? Conservatives
>>> aren't more 'moral' after all." Such claims, though,
>>> misunderstand a basic underpinning of conservative philosophy:
>>> human beings become civilized not through the absence of sin but
>>> the conscious struggle with sin. Sin is bad; but the true offense
>>> there are moral boundaries even worth recognizing. Conservatism
>>> is usually most politically successful in religiously orthodox
>>> precincts where anxiety over the modern-day collapse of visible
>>> moral boundaries is most evident. That Americans sin a lot so we
>>> can't hope for them to vote conservatively is a new claim.
>>>
>>> Why the change? For one thing, populism has never been an
>>> entirely comfortable fit for elite conservatives. Majorities of
>>> middle-class Americans can be persuaded to support tax cuts for
>>> they may eventually become rich themselves. But they are also
>>> susceptible to appeals like the one George Wallace made in the
>>> recession year of 1976. He built his campaign on both
>>> hellfire-and-brimstone moralism and a pledge of soak-the-rich tax
>>> policies. The elite conservative fears that the temptation to woo
>>> working-class voters will, you know, shade into policies that
>>> actually advantage the working class. That fear surfaced recently
>>> the dangerous populists dragging the Republicans down-dismissed
>>> O'Reillys and Becks-can be heard mouthing attitudes once confined
>>> to the violent fringe. For the second time in three months, Fox
>>> heavily promoted anti-administration "tea party" events this past
>>> Confederation, at which speakers "joked" about a coup against the
>>> communist Muslim Barack Obama like the one against Manuel Zelaya
>>> in Honduras. "What's going on at Fox News?" Frum recently asked,
>>> excoriating Beck for passing out to followers books by the nutty
>>> far- right conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen. If you were an
>>> elite conservative, you might be embarrassed too.
>>>
>>> The conservative intellectuals once were able to work together
>>> more effectively with the conservative unwashed. Now, more and
>>> more, their recent irritation renders them akin to the Stalinist
>>> commissars mocked by poet Bertolt -Brecht, who asked if they
>>> might "dissolve the people/And elect another." The bargain the
>>> right has offered the downwardly mobile, culturally insecure
>>> existential certitudes in a world that seems somehow to have gone
Whatever anyone thinks of Hillary - at least she was willing to put in the
effort to learn the issues. Unlike Palin who flat out refused, according to
Newsweek.
Big J
news:B4-dnXItd91zGsTX...@centurytel.net:
Lies, lies, LIES!!! "Your all haters!" <snerk>
I agree w/ the above posts. We have lost any real dialogue about the
issues. All that matters is who can yell the loudest sound byte.
It's been said so much that it's cliche - all the conservatives care
about are the three G's: God, guns, gays. They don't care about the
problems of the education system, poverty, global warming and foreign
relations.
Their answers:
education? not our problem. let the state or city handle it.
poverty? not our problem. it's the fault of the poor.
global warming? isn't happening. it's liberal lies.
foreign relations? we have bombs. don't need diplomacy.
And I agree that Hillary had the capacity and willingness to educate
herself about the position and the issues. Her involvment in the Clinton
administration also helped prepare her.
Palin is being criticized - by Republicans - for her lack of discipline
both in sticking to the campaign script and also in preparation for
interviews and debates.
We can argue about whether she *is* stupid or just *looked* stupid
because of her lack of preparation. But the bottom line is that she gave
interviews that made her appear dumb, uninformed and out of touch with
the requirements of the VP position.
And the Palin loyalists have no rebuttal except to foam at the mouth,
criticize Obama and claim that "the liberals" are "afraid" of Palin.
They seem to think that a personal attack on Obama or Clinton somehow
make Palin smarter and more capable. It's a very childlike means of
argument. Their entire argument consists of ad hominem attacks and
changing the subject.
They can not point to examples of Palin's ability to master a complex
subject such as foreign relations and speak intelligently about it. They
have no answer to the growing Republican criticism of her - the Peggy
Noonan articles are a good example, as is the article quoted above. They
may try personal attacks against those Republicans who criticize Palin,
but they can't address the points of the criticism.
Which results in a tantrum for these R'tards. They have nothing to say of
value, so they just whine and cry and soil themselves.
Big J
-----
questions questions
> "Big J" <bi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C44D25AFF187...@216.196.97.130...
>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/206098
> Why can't you tell the truth, J?
>
> 70% of republicans will still vote for her.
>
> There are some republicans that are against her, but those were idiots
I got some news for you. I'm still somewhat republican... not near as much
as I used to be... and I detest Sara Palin. And I'm no idiot.
questions questions
> And I agree that Hillary had the capacity and willingness to educate
> herself about the position and the issues. Her involvment in the Clinton
> administration also helped prepare her for a lifetime of lying, self-promotion,
> and criminal behavior with no thoughts of consequences.
Oh well, said, I agree.
questions questions
> Newsweek is a left wing organ.
thats newsweek's evan thomas saying Obama is God.
if some of that doesnt make you sick, then you're a stupid, blind moron.
Big J
news:008b7416$0$22934$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
Thanks for the honesty. I think many right-leaning independents and
barely-right-of-center Republicans feel the same way.
And as for Syvyn11, he continues to post ignorantly.
He asks me why "can't you tell the truth?" when all I did was post an
article. I made no comment on it whatsever. I posted the article in its
entirety and copied the title from the page that linked to it.
No words were my own, except my sig line. But he's evidently unable to
comprehend that. If he has any disagreement, it's not WITH ME, but with
the AUTHOR OF THE DAMN ARTICLE!!!!
R'tard is as R'tard does.
Big J
-----
Big J
I did not say that.
I said:
"And I agree that Hillary had the capacity and willingness to educate
herself about the position and the issues. Her involvment in the Clinton
administration also helped prepare her."
Evidently some troll/tard saw fit to alter my words. That's typical.
Big J
-----
Big J
$.1f1b160t...@40tude.net:
I can agree with you that the Thomas adulaiton was over the top and
somewhat silly.
But to claim, as the previous poster did, that Newsweek "is a left wing
organ" is unsupportable, unthinking and typical R'tard talking points.
Big J
-----
wull
What B.S., if you post an article, you go along with it unless you make a
disclaimer. Why try to hedge your way out of it, most probably so you can
attack Syvyn11 and then not be blamed, which seems to be your vocation.
Wull
questions questions
> R'tard is as R'tard does.
>
Nice intolerant content there. Go ahead, just keep hurling those insults
and stereotypes around, and keep being a clueless fuckstick as to why
anyone would think its intolerant.
I detest Palin.... but she's smarter than you, Big J.
I honestly think she could mop the floor with you in a debate.
questions questions
> questions questions <hallo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:003c9c09$0$4532$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:06:09 -0500, Big J wrote:
>>
>>> And I agree that Hillary had the capacity and willingness to educate
>>> herself about the position and the issues. Her involvment in the
>>> Clinton administration also helped prepare her for a lifetime of
>>> lying, self-promotion, and criminal behavior with no thoughts of
>>> consequences.
>>
>> Oh well, said, I agree.
>
> I did not say that.
>
(alice in wonderland magic caterpillar voice)
I have improooved it.
Its now factual. Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton is an honest person, a
politician with no self-promotion agenda, and no history of criminal
activity, is a blind fucking floon. She sure as hell learned the ropes from
her husband. Of course, blind party floons like you, adore him too.
questions questions
Of course a blind party loyalist floon like you would see a rag like
Newsweek and be unable to discern any bias. But wonder upon wonder, you can
watch 5 seconds of FOX and recognize the bias.
Now why is that?
Because for all your finger-pointing about how everybody who disagrees with
you is close-minded, you're every bit as close-minded yourself?
Yup, something like that.
Syvyn11
excuse me, Junior?
>
> -----
Syvyn11
"wull" <wma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:g0K6m.7466$cl4....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
J is just in one of his 'moods'. As far as liberals go in this NG, he's
pretty fair minded.
Big J
Wrong. I have not accused anyone of being close-minded.
Further, I said it is unsupportable.
If you think it's true, then support it with data.
Support it with surveys and studies.
You can't.
Big J
-----
2nz
> "Big J" <b...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9C476406FD61D...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
> > questions questions <hallofre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >news:008b7416$0$22934$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>
> >> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:24:16 -0400, Syvyn11 wrote:
>
> >>>news:Xns9C44D25AFF187...@216.196.97.130...
> >>>>http://www.newsweek.com/id/206098
> >>> Why can't you tell the truth, J?
>
> >>> 70% of republicans will still vote for her.
>
> >>> There are some republicans that are against her, but those were
> >>> idiots
>
> >> I got some news for you. I'm still somewhat republican... not near as
> >> much as I used to be... and I detest Sara Palin. And I'm no idiot.
>
> > Thanks for the honesty. I think many right-leaning independents and
> > barely-right-of-center Republicans feel the same way.
>
> > And as for Syvyn11, he continues to post ignorantly.
>
> > He asks me why "can't you tell the truth?" when all I did was post an
> > article. I made no comment on it whatsever. I posted the article in its
> > entirety and copied the title from the page that linked to it.
>
> > No words were my own, except my sig line. But he's evidently unable to
> > comprehend that. If he has any disagreement, it's not WITH ME, but with
> > the AUTHOR OF THE DAMN ARTICLE!!!!
>
> > R'tard is as R'tard does.
>
> > Big J
>
> excuse me, Junior?
>
I've always thought that the "J" stands for "johnson".
questions questions
> Wrong. I have not accused anyone of being close-minded.
right, all right wingers are r'tards, which means they are extremely open
minded.
yeah sure.
Just one big circle jerk of lies and excuses and blame denial, arent you.
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/liberal-bias-at-newsweek/
a simple google search with one click turned up a good many articles, this
one above, showing newsweeks bias, dating back to the Kerry-Bush race.
Big J
news:424efb62-4d9d-43e2...@l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
Snerk! I'll take the compliment....
His response of "excuse me, Junior" is typical.
He can't address the point and has only ad hominem attacks. That is the
R'tard method of response.
He accused me of not telling the truth when all I did was post an article
with no content of my own.
I called him on it and pointed out how ignorant that was.
His response shows he has no response for his ignorant actions.
I remember now why I plonked him years ago.
Big J
-----
questions questions
> He can't address the point and has only ad hominem attacks. That is the
> R'tard method of response.
there are liberals doing the EXACT SAME THING all over this board.
Take off your blinders and look around..... your side isnt any better than
their side.
Syvyn11
Not a attack pal. I wouldn't mind if you expanded your comments.
>
> He accused me of not telling the truth when all I did was post an article
> with no content of my own.
>
> I called him on it and pointed out how ignorant that was.
>
> His response shows he has no response for his ignorant actions.
>
> I remember now why I plonked him years ago.
Did Brandy Alexander spike your tea or something?
>
> Big J
>
> -----
It's the Principle!
That's all well and good but that's not was under discussion. It was
about a willingness to not look like a trailer park moron during
interview.
It's the Principle!
You actually care what the government tit sucking slacker thinks? In
his "all for me and never for thee" world, he's in for a rude awakening
when the republicans regain control and expect even people with one
foot to at least get a desk job.
questions questions
Well, somebodys gonna end up having to pay for all this commie-leaning
socialist "everybody deserves a better lifestyle so let's dumb it all down
and punish the frontrunners by spreading the wealth around" bullshit. When
the bills come due, somebody that got a better lifestyle for free, by just
moaning about how bad their life is, is gonna have to actually go out and
get a job. Imagine that.
questions questions
> questions questions <hallo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> alt.gossip.celebrities:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:53:31 -0500, Big J wrote:
>>
>>> questions questions <hallo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:003c9c09$0$4532$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:06:09 -0500, Big J wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And I agree that Hillary had the capacity and willingness to
>>>>> educate herself about the position and the issues. Her
>>>>> involvment in the Clinton administration also helped prepare
>>>>> her for a lifetime of lying, self-promotion, and criminal
>>>>> behavior with no thoughts of consequences.
>>>>
>>>> Oh well, said, I agree.
>>>
>>> I did not say that.
>>>
>>
>> (alice in wonderland magic caterpillar voice)
>>
>> I have improooved it.
>>
>> Its now factual. Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton is an honest
>> person, a politician with no self-promotion agenda, and no history
>> of criminal activity, is a blind fucking floon. She sure as hell
>> learned the ropes from her husband. Of course, blind party floons
>> like you, adore him too.
>>
>
> That's all well and good but that's not was under discussion. It was
> about a willingness to not look like a trailer park moron during
> interview.
Point taken. Which is worse, looking like a deer in the headlights (Palin)
or an evil old spurned witch with an 8 year old axe to grind (Clinton)?