The Bus reaches the Cross-road.
December 22, 2007 10:32 AM Subscribe
They were polite to us. They were more than happy for us to come to the rallies and stand in lines for hours to cheer on the candidates.... But when they got elected, behind closed doors, they would laugh at us and speak with scorn and derision that we were, as one article I think once said "the easily led." So there's been almost this sort of, it's okay if you guys get a seat on the bus, but don't ever think about telling us where the bus is going to go.
Mike Huckabee asks, What's the Matter with
It's been said before by other evangelicals and people of faith, notably in the "Mayberry Machiavellis" letter.
The Republican Establishment doesn't ♥ Huckabee. (Maybe Rich Lowry should recall what he wrote in 2004, when the evangelicals were more useful to his purposes.)
But What if Huckabee Loses?
Republicans have won the votes of downscale evangelicals for years by arguing that Democrats condescend to them and sneer at them behind their backs. Well, how do you think they're going to respond if East-coast conservative elites start doing the same thing--but in full public view?Will the evangelicals get to drive, or will wheels fall off the bus?
The Republican party has collectively decided that evangelicals are more of a burden than an asset. They drive away more voters than they bring. That's Falwell's political legacy -- certainly not the one he hoped for.
So the GOP flatters evangelicals, and welcomes their votes, but doesn't let them seriously influence policy because doing so is a losing strategy. (Besides, what are they going to do, vote for Democrats?)
I think that the Kossite "netroots" wing of the Democratic party will eventually get treated the same way (patted on the head but otherwise ignored), but so far the Democrats haven't been punished enough in elections to come to the conclusion that pandering to the netroots is a losing strategy.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:47 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
So the GOP flatters evangelicals, and welcomes their votes, but doesn't let them seriously influence policy because doing so is a losing strategy. (Besides, what are they going to do, vote for Democrats?)
I think that the Kossite "netroots" wing of the Democratic party will eventually get treated the same way (patted on the head but otherwise ignored), but so far the Democrats haven't been punished enough in elections to come to the conclusion that pandering to the netroots is a losing strategy.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:47 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's fucked up that Huckabee is the least scary republican candidate.
posted by afu at 10:49 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by afu at 10:49 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Steven C. Den Beste: Besides, what are they going to do, vote for Democrats?
I think that once they get over the booga-booga scare issues like abortion and sex education and realize how hostile the Republicans are to more fundamental Christian issues like peace and social justice, I suspect that's exactly what will happen.
posted by localroger at 10:54 AM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
I think that once they get over the booga-booga scare issues like abortion and sex education and realize how hostile the Republicans are to more fundamental Christian issues like peace and social justice, I suspect that's exactly what will happen.
posted by localroger at 10:54 AM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
Bullshit. Christ was arguably about social justice. Christians are (by and large) about social control.
posted by orthogonality at 10:57 AM on December 22, 2007 [12 favorites]
posted by orthogonality at 10:57 AM on December 22, 2007 [12 favorites]
I have absolutely, positively no sympathy for Evangelicals and other Christians who whored themselves out for a taste of power over people they disagreed with. Watching them realize that they were never respected, just tolerated, is gratifying the way seeing the asshole jock from High School washing your car for pocket-change is gratifying.
posted by verb at 10:59 AM on December 22, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by verb at 10:59 AM on December 22, 2007 [4 favorites]
It's fucked up that Huckabee is the least scary republican candidate.
You haven't been reading enough.
posted by billysumday at 11:01 AM on December 22, 2007
You haven't been reading enough.
posted by billysumday at 11:01 AM on December 22, 2007
Republicans have won the votes of downscale evangelicals for years by arguing that Democrats condescend to them and sneer at them behind their backs. Well, how do you think they're going to respond if East-coast conservative elites start doing the same thing--but in full public view?
They're already doing that. The right wing blogsphere hates him. These are guys are mostly animated by a desire to kill Muslims (basically) and they can't stand the idea that they are about to lose their party. Guiliani is their guy. There was an article a while back buy a guy
So the GOP flatters evangelicals, and welcomes their votes, but doesn't let them seriously influence policy because doing so is a losing strategy. (Besides, what are they going to do, vote for Democrats?)
They just won't vote at all. And more importantly they won't be out there actively organizing and 'evangelizing' republicans to their friends. The evangelical community constituted the core of the republican "Grass Roots", which is absolutely key for voter turn out.
The republican party is in crisis and watching it's demise is fantastic. I just hope Hillary doesn't win the Dem nomination.
posted by delmoi at 11:03 AM on December 22, 2007 [5 favorites]
They're already doing that. The right wing blogsphere hates him. These are guys are mostly animated by a desire to kill Muslims (basically) and they can't stand the idea that they are about to lose their party. Guiliani is their guy. There was an article a while back buy a guy
So the GOP flatters evangelicals, and welcomes their votes, but doesn't let them seriously influence policy because doing so is a losing strategy. (Besides, what are they going to do, vote for Democrats?)
They just won't vote at all. And more importantly they won't be out there actively organizing and 'evangelizing' republicans to their friends. The evangelical community constituted the core of the republican "Grass Roots", which is absolutely key for voter turn out.
The republican party is in crisis and watching it's demise is fantastic. I just hope Hillary doesn't win the Dem nomination.
posted by delmoi at 11:03 AM on December 22, 2007 [5 favorites]
This election, on both sides, seems to be about the appeal of populism (Huckabee, Edwards, to some extent Obama) vs. political elitism (Clinton, Romney, McCain) vs. aaaargh terrorism! (Thompson, Giuliana). Edwards vs. Huckabee would be a really interesting election.
posted by billysumday at 11:04 AM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by billysumday at 11:04 AM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
You haven't been reading enough.
Who do you think is less Scary then Huckabee? Ron Paul? McCain who wants to escalate in Iraq? Guiliani who wants to escalate in Iran? The other ones who want to round up all the Mexicans? Huckabee has issues but they do seem to be smaller in magnitude then his rivals.
posted by delmoi at 11:05 AM on December 22, 2007
Who do you think is less Scary then Huckabee? Ron Paul? McCain who wants to escalate in Iraq? Guiliani who wants to escalate in Iran? The other ones who want to round up all the Mexicans? Huckabee has issues but they do seem to be smaller in magnitude then his rivals.
posted by delmoi at 11:05 AM on December 22, 2007
> Watching them realize that they were never respected, just tolerated, is gratifying the way seeing the asshole jock from High School washing your car for pocket-change is gratifying.
Schaedenfraude has rarely, if ever, felt so damn good.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:05 AM on December 22, 2007
Schaedenfraude has rarely, if ever, felt so damn good.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:05 AM on December 22, 2007
Huck's no populist. He's a Dominionist with a friendly face. See The Handmaid's Tale.
Astoundingly, "abolish the IRS" gold-standard whackjob Paul is the Republican candidate nearest to reality.
posted by orthogonality at 11:11 AM on December 22, 2007
Astoundingly, "abolish the IRS" gold-standard whackjob Paul is the Republican candidate nearest to reality.
posted by orthogonality at 11:11 AM on December 22, 2007
orthogonality, Christians are a very diverse group. You tend to notice the assholes because they make the most noise. I grew up in a devoutly SBC household and the increasing looniness of the SBC drove my parents from religion (though not for about a decade after me). I expect that now that the Republican coalition is falling apart a lot of the moderates who have been hanging on because of the political importance will realize how badly they've been had and return to their core principles.
posted by localroger at 11:12 AM on December 22, 2007
posted by localroger at 11:12 AM on December 22, 2007
Who do you think is less Scary then Huckabee?
McCain is by far less scary than Huckabee. You think Huckabee is going to bring the troops home on day one of his administration? McCain's thoughts on Iraq are no different than any of the other Republicans. He doesn't want war with Iran. He's socially conservative but doesn't spout anything near the drivel of Huckabee.
posted by billysumday at 11:12 AM on December 22, 2007
McCain is by far less scary than Huckabee. You think Huckabee is going to bring the troops home on day one of his administration? McCain's thoughts on Iraq are no different than any of the other Republicans. He doesn't want war with Iran. He's socially conservative but doesn't spout anything near the drivel of Huckabee.
posted by billysumday at 11:12 AM on December 22, 2007
Gotta agree that Ron Paul is the sanest of the bunch. Huck's only looking good because nobody has dug too deeply into the backgrounds of second tier candidates. Now that he's up front and word is getting out, it's shaping up to be a Giuliani's-mistress level bloodbath.
posted by localroger at 11:15 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by localroger at 11:15 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Further, you think our standing in the world is shit now? Imagine if America elected a creationist Baptist preacher that thinks gays with the AIDS should be quarantined. Who would Huckabee appoint for his cabinet? He's like the Joel Osteen of politics. Seemingly harmless and benign but ultimately creepy, controlling, and sort of dumb.
posted by billysumday at 11:15 AM on December 22, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by billysumday at 11:15 AM on December 22, 2007 [4 favorites]
"I think that the Kossite "netroots" wing of the Democratic party will eventually get treated the same way (patted on the head but otherwise ignored), ... "
What do you mean eventually?
The DNC looks at the "netroots" for what it is: a cash generating device, and they look at (what is considered) the left wing of the democratic party (e.g. Kos et al) in pretty much they same way the RNC looks at Evangelicals: "Where else are they going to go?"
So Christian fundamentalists will go vote for whoever the Republican nominee is in much the same way that liberals will vote for whoever the Dems nominate, even if it's Clinton (who, to my mind, is pretty regressive, and Republican in her own right).
posted by Relay at 11:21 AM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
What do you mean eventually?
The DNC looks at the "netroots" for what it is: a cash generating device, and they look at (what is considered) the left wing of the democratic party (e.g. Kos et al) in pretty much they same way the RNC looks at Evangelicals: "Where else are they going to go?"
So Christian fundamentalists will go vote for whoever the Republican nominee is in much the same way that liberals will vote for whoever the Dems nominate, even if it's Clinton (who, to my mind, is pretty regressive, and Republican in her own right).
posted by Relay at 11:21 AM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a Democrat to come calling and say "Look, I know we have major differences, differences that aren't going to be hammered out soon, if ever. But maybe we can work together where we agree and that'll help us figure out how to work on stuff we disagree on."
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:22 AM on December 22, 2007
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:22 AM on December 22, 2007
localroger writes "the moderates who have been hanging on because of the political importance will realize how badly they've been had and return to their core principles."
What core principles? More global warming and lower taxes? Corporate profits made by murdering 17 year old girls? Old fashioned racism?
Bush has distorted and destroyed "principled conservatism" and (check out the hydra-headed DHS) abandoned even the pretense of "limited government". There's no "Main Street" Republicanism left to return to.
Imperialism, perpetual war (and perpetual contracts for the military-industrial complex), hate and intolerance (of Muslims, gays, feminism), and public piety (intimately coupled with private hypocrisy and perversion) are all that's left of the Republican Party.
Huckabee's rise among the evangels just exposes the rot, and accelerates the fall.
posted by orthogonality at 11:23 AM on December 22, 2007 [4 favorites]
What core principles? More global warming and lower taxes? Corporate profits made by murdering 17 year old girls? Old fashioned racism?
Bush has distorted and destroyed "principled conservatism" and (check out the hydra-headed DHS) abandoned even the pretense of "limited government". There's no "Main Street" Republicanism left to return to.
Imperialism, perpetual war (and perpetual contracts for the military-industrial complex), hate and intolerance (of Muslims, gays, feminism), and public piety (intimately coupled with private hypocrisy and perversion) are all that's left of the Republican Party.
Huckabee's rise among the evangels just exposes the rot, and accelerates the fall.
posted by orthogonality at 11:23 AM on December 22, 2007 [4 favorites]
From the '04 Lowry article:
The Bush presidency should be stamped: "Brought to you by orthodox Christian believers."
Hey, he said it, not me.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:25 AM on December 22, 2007
The Bush presidency should be stamped: "Brought to you by orthodox Christian believers."
Hey, he said it, not me.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:25 AM on December 22, 2007
Ron Paul's the sanest of the bunch? You wanna bet an Amero on that?
posted by prodigalsun at 11:30 AM on December 22, 2007
posted by prodigalsun at 11:30 AM on December 22, 2007
The Huckabee Revolution: Evangelicals At The GOP Gate
“Mike Huckabee's insurrectionist presidential campaign is defying the determination of the Republican establishment to restrict the selection of the party's nominee to pre-approved candidates.posted by ericb at 11:30 AM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
At the same time that the ordained Baptist minister has surged to the forefront of the field not only in Iowa but in South Carolina and Florida, powerful conservative players -- from Bob Novak to the National Review to the Wall Street Journal -- are voicing outrage.
‘A comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs,’ fumed George Will, so infuriated that on December 20 the normally impeccable stylist used the same phrase twice in one paragraph: ‘Huckabee's radical candidacy,’ Will continued, ‘broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.’
Huckabee is capitalizing on his role as a revolutionary, reveling in the success of his populist appeal to Christian and evangelical voters, many of whom see themselves as victimized by the privileged classes on both sides of the aisle.
On the December 19 Today Show, Huckabee was asked to respond to a National Review column titled ‘Huckacide’ in which editor Rich Lowry argued that a Huckabee ‘nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party.’
Why such hostility from the venerable conservative publication?
‘Because they don't control me,’ Huckabee shot back. ‘I'm not one of theirs. I'm not one of those guys that just owe my soul to the people on Wall Street. I'm not a wholly owned subsidiary.’
Huckabee then took exception to the treatment of Christian conservatives by the GOP mainstream: ‘There's a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican Party. They wanted us to be a part of it. And then one day one of us actually runs and they say, `Oh, my gosh, now they're serious.' They don't want to just show up and vote, they actually would want to be a part of the discussion.’
Huckabee not only lacks endorsements from Republican Party principals, but also from the most prominent leaders of the traditional Christian and social issues sector of the party.” [more...]
As long as we're all here, any predictions for the raw (first round) caucus votes in the Iowa Republican Primary?
posted by orthogonality at 11:31 AM on December 22, 2007
posted by orthogonality at 11:31 AM on December 22, 2007
Huackabee also has a bizarre, otherworldly tax plan called FairTax, that skews the burden of taxation heavily towards the poor. I'd say that was scary.
posted by athenian at 11:33 AM on December 22, 2007
posted by athenian at 11:33 AM on December 22, 2007
As long as we're all here, any predictions for the raw (first round) caucus votes in the Iowa Republican Primary?
Yeah, I bet Huckabee takes Iowa.
After that, I bet RNC machine cranks up against him in a big way through third parties (AEI, WSJ, Fox etc.; "Is Huckabee really a republican? That's our topic on today's Hannity & Combes ... ", and although he might make a dent in primaries like South Carolina and Florida, the best he (and Evangelicals) can hope for is getting the VP slot (which actually might work as a calmative for the religious vote).
posted by Relay at 11:36 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I bet Huckabee takes Iowa.
After that, I bet RNC machine cranks up against him in a big way through third parties (AEI, WSJ, Fox etc.; "Is Huckabee really a republican? That's our topic on today's Hannity & Combes ... ", and although he might make a dent in primaries like South Carolina and Florida, the best he (and Evangelicals) can hope for is getting the VP slot (which actually might work as a calmative for the religious vote).
posted by Relay at 11:36 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
On the December 19 Today Show...
The interview (also referenced in orthogonality's link "But What if Huckabee Loses?" hyperlink) is here [YouTube].
The interview (also referenced in orthogonality's link "But What if Huckabee Loses?" hyperlink) is here [YouTube].
Huckabee:posted by ericb at 11:38 AM on December 22, 2007
"The Wall Street to Washington axis--this corridor of power--is absolutely frantically against me. But out there in America, the reason that we're number one in the polls is because I'm the guy who doesn't have some off-shore mailbox and bank account in the Caymans hiding my money. I'm the guy who worked my way up through it. And there are a whole lot of people in America who believe that the president ought to be a servant of the people, and ought not to be elected to the ruling class."
Here's to hoping that Relay's prediction proves true, except that after winning the first couple of primaries, and then ultimately getting shut out of the nomination by the RNC machine, Huckabee goes solo as a third party candidate. Oh Lord please let it be so.
posted by billysumday at 11:38 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by billysumday at 11:38 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
A dent in SC? Hucky is gonna win SC, unless the establishment smears him first, or the Establishment gets teh evangel leaders to go Judas on Huck. SC is Jesus-land.
posted by orthogonality at 11:40 AM on December 22, 2007
posted by orthogonality at 11:40 AM on December 22, 2007
I find Ron Paul far scarier than the others. Abolishing the Fed and IRS, and returning to gold would take years, if not decades, to recover from. By contrast, the practical consequences of nutty religionists, although unpleasant, are relatively easy to reverse. Huckabee's FairTax sounds fairly horrifying, though.
posted by matthewr at 11:41 AM on December 22, 2007
posted by matthewr at 11:41 AM on December 22, 2007
"Here's to hoping that Relay's prediction proves true, except that after winning the first couple of primaries, and then ultimately getting shut out of the nomination by the RNC machine, Huckabee goes solo as a third party candidate. Oh Lord please let it be so."
OK billysumday, say that Huckabee finally does tank, then who does get the GOP nomination?
I think part of the problem facing the GOP voter at the moment is that all of the current candidates are C+ answers.
I think a lot of the "Huckabee surge" is due to "well, he's close," for a lot of conservative voters.
He's not the ideal candidate, but he's the closest.
The real problem, strategically speaking, for the GOP, is, who do they get to replace him, and how do they sell that replacement to the base?
posted by Relay at 11:44 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
OK billysumday, say that Huckabee finally does tank, then who does get the GOP nomination?
I think part of the problem facing the GOP voter at the moment is that all of the current candidates are C+ answers.
I think a lot of the "Huckabee surge" is due to "well, he's close," for a lot of conservative voters.
He's not the ideal candidate, but he's the closest.
The real problem, strategically speaking, for the GOP, is, who do they get to replace him, and how do they sell that replacement to the base?
posted by Relay at 11:44 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
matthewr writes "By contrast, the practical consequences of nutty religionists, although unpleasant, are relatively easy to reverse."
Bush won in 2000 and 2004 by getting the evangels to the polls; that gave us the two trillion borrowed dollars Iraq War, which (among many other things) has gutted science funding in this country.
Not to mention that evangels directly oppose science cirricula and funding for stuff like embryonic stem cell research. Had we done that research, each one of us could look forward to an extra 20 years of lifespan. If you're over 30, the Bush years have already condemned you to an earlier death and probably greater poverty. Another evangel presidency means extending that to the kids presently in their twenties.
posted by orthogonality at 11:49 AM on December 22, 2007 [5 favorites]
Bush won in 2000 and 2004 by getting the evangels to the polls; that gave us the two trillion borrowed dollars Iraq War, which (among many other things) has gutted science funding in this country.
Not to mention that evangels directly oppose science cirricula and funding for stuff like embryonic stem cell research. Had we done that research, each one of us could look forward to an extra 20 years of lifespan. If you're over 30, the Bush years have already condemned you to an earlier death and probably greater poverty. Another evangel presidency means extending that to the kids presently in their twenties.
posted by orthogonality at 11:49 AM on December 22, 2007 [5 favorites]
Ron Paul is never going to get elected matthewr.
There's too much openly racist stuff in his past that's easily found and exploited.
For example, there's this little tid-bit I was reading recently:
"We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality," he writes. In the same 1992 newsletter, Paul outlined his ideas for a separate justice system for African American children:
We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
From here.
Any professionally run campaign in America circa 2008 could bitch slap Ron Paul until he didn't know whether to piss or go blind.
posted by Relay at 11:53 AM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
There's too much openly racist stuff in his past that's easily found and exploited.
For example, there's this little tid-bit I was reading recently:
"We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality," he writes. In the same 1992 newsletter, Paul outlined his ideas for a separate justice system for African American children:
We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
From here.
Any professionally run campaign in America circa 2008 could bitch slap Ron Paul until he didn't know whether to piss or go blind.
posted by Relay at 11:53 AM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
As I've mentioned before, it's not about Paul winning; he won't. It's about letting him drive a wedge into the Republican Party. I don't care about his racial opinions so long as he destroys the Party.
posted by orthogonality at 11:57 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by orthogonality at 11:57 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Relay -- that Paul quote on 13 y.o. African American boys is "wow," but I mean "wow!"
posted by ericb at 11:59 AM on December 22, 2007
posted by ericb at 11:59 AM on December 22, 2007
Well, I did say relatively easy to reverse, compared to Ron Paul's doings. I didn't say it would be a walk in the park. Sure, eight years of reduced science funding is a bummer, but the succeeding President can get funding levels back up to traditional levels at the flick of a switch, relatively speaking.
I meant nutty religionists qua nutty religionists. For instance, I suspect the Iraq war would still have happened had one the irreligious Republicans been in power at the time (Giuliani? McCain? Both seem like godless heathens to me, public pronouncements notwithstanding).
posted by matthewr at 12:00 PM on December 22, 2007
I meant nutty religionists qua nutty religionists. For instance, I suspect the Iraq war would still have happened had one the irreligious Republicans been in power at the time (Giuliani? McCain? Both seem like godless heathens to me, public pronouncements notwithstanding).
posted by matthewr at 12:00 PM on December 22, 2007
Ron Paul is never going to get elected matthewr.
Oh, I'm well aware of that. But if he hypothetically was elected, and hypothetically was able to enact all of his policies, I think that'd be pretty disastrous. That's all I was saying.
posted by matthewr at 12:01 PM on December 22, 2007
Oh, I'm well aware of that. But if he hypothetically was elected, and hypothetically was able to enact all of his policies, I think that'd be pretty disastrous. That's all I was saying.
posted by matthewr at 12:01 PM on December 22, 2007
Well then if he hypothetically was elected, I'd be hypothetically getting my ass as far away from America as I could matthewr.
Oh, and ericb, if that's what an outfit like The American Prospect can dig up, imagine what else is out there?
You don't have to scratch Ron Paul very deep to find out what kind of dingbat he really is, any more than you don't have to scratch Huckabee very deep to see what sort of a dominionist lack-wit he is ... or, for that matter, scratch Clinton or Romney to see that they're say anythingists as long as it gets them elected.
posted by Relay at 12:15 PM on December 22, 2007
Oh, and ericb, if that's what an outfit like The American Prospect can dig up, imagine what else is out there?
You don't have to scratch Ron Paul very deep to find out what kind of dingbat he really is, any more than you don't have to scratch Huckabee very deep to see what sort of a dominionist lack-wit he is ... or, for that matter, scratch Clinton or Romney to see that they're say anythingists as long as it gets them elected.
posted by Relay at 12:15 PM on December 22, 2007
matthewr writes "but the succeeding President can get funding levels back up to traditional levels at the flick of a switch, relatively speaking."
No, no, no. Decreased funding -> fewer jobs -> fewer students entering science grad programs -> fewer top students coming here from Europe and Asia -> programs shutting dowm for lack of students.
After your switch is flicked, it will take a a minimum of 8 years to fill up the ranks again, if you can find the professors to teach and the researchers to research. All this exacerbated by the retirement of the Baby Boomers. 12 years minimum for stuff that requires an MD in addition to a PhD, like human applications of basic research discoveries.
We are fucked good. In Kansas and the Bible-Belt, creationism means that high school seniors can't even take Biology 101 without remedial retraining. Elsewhere, No Child Left behind has produced kids who can take tests but who can't think critically. As the Boomers retire, we're left with a knowledge gap that extends from college freshman to TA to grad student to untenured faculty to research scientist. Even if we do rededicate ourselves to doing science, there will be too few practioners able to teach the next generation. Not everyone can go to decent schools, and the science faculties of the state colleges will be broken and scattered. We'll still tach science at MIT and Berkely, but the cutters of wood and hewers of water, the lab assistants and so forth, will be lacking.
We've eaten the seed corn or sacrificed it to on the alter of Creationism, and the effects will be felt for at least a generation. This is how societies collapse, in Imperialist fantasies and pietistic waste which leads to an eroding of basic infrastructure. We've allowed our most important infrastructure, education and research, to decline, and no flipping the switch will get it back.
posted by orthogonality at 12:16 PM on December 22, 2007 [17 favorites]
No, no, no. Decreased funding -> fewer jobs -> fewer students entering science grad programs -> fewer top students coming here from Europe and Asia -> programs shutting dowm for lack of students.
After your switch is flicked, it will take a a minimum of 8 years to fill up the ranks again, if you can find the professors to teach and the researchers to research. All this exacerbated by the retirement of the Baby Boomers. 12 years minimum for stuff that requires an MD in addition to a PhD, like human applications of basic research discoveries.
We are fucked good. In Kansas and the Bible-Belt, creationism means that high school seniors can't even take Biology 101 without remedial retraining. Elsewhere, No Child Left behind has produced kids who can take tests but who can't think critically. As the Boomers retire, we're left with a knowledge gap that extends from college freshman to TA to grad student to untenured faculty to research scientist. Even if we do rededicate ourselves to doing science, there will be too few practioners able to teach the next generation. Not everyone can go to decent schools, and the science faculties of the state colleges will be broken and scattered. We'll still tach science at MIT and Berkely, but the cutters of wood and hewers of water, the lab assistants and so forth, will be lacking.
We've eaten the seed corn or sacrificed it to on the alter of Creationism, and the effects will be felt for at least a generation. This is how societies collapse, in Imperialist fantasies and pietistic waste which leads to an eroding of basic infrastructure. We've allowed our most important infrastructure, education and research, to decline, and no flipping the switch will get it back.
posted by orthogonality at 12:16 PM on December 22, 2007 [17 favorites]
OK billysumday, say that Huckabee finally does tank, then who does get the GOP nomination?
McCain will get the nod. You're right, all of the others are a C+, but McCain is a B-. Additionally, he will fare the best in a general election. I don't know how they're going to sell McCain, but I do think the Republican forces will ultimately coalesce behind him.
posted by billysumday at 12:30 PM on December 22, 2007
McCain will get the nod. You're right, all of the others are a C+, but McCain is a B-. Additionally, he will fare the best in a general election. I don't know how they're going to sell McCain, but I do think the Republican forces will ultimately coalesce behind him.
posted by billysumday at 12:30 PM on December 22, 2007
Pfft, those problems are trivial when compared to correcting the almighty cock-up of reverting to Gold and abolishing the Fed. I don't think America under Huckabee or similar would be a veritable land of milk and honey any more than you do, I'm saying that as unpleasant as that prospect is, the problems caused by a hypothetical Ron Paul administration would be more fundamental and much harder to properly put right. I'm being flippant in these comments, but I'm not wrong.
posted by matthewr at 12:39 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by matthewr at 12:39 PM on December 22, 2007
It's a non-isue: even if Paul won the primary (he won't) and won the general (he won't), he'd have no support from Dems or Republicans in the Congress, so he wouldn't be able to abolish anything. Huck would have the support of Republicans (based on party unity) and conservative Dems 9those with evangel constituencies).
I'm not arguing that Paul should win; I'm arguing that progressives should support his candidacy to destroy the Republicans, which in turn would free progressives from having to support DLC Dems as the lesser of two evils.
posted by orthogonality at 12:47 PM on December 22, 2007
I'm not arguing that Paul should win; I'm arguing that progressives should support his candidacy to destroy the Republicans, which in turn would free progressives from having to support DLC Dems as the lesser of two evils.
posted by orthogonality at 12:47 PM on December 22, 2007
McCain will get the nod. You're right, all of the others are a C+, but McCain is a B-. Additionally, he will fare the best in a general election. I don't know how they're going to sell McCain, but I do think the Republican forces will ultimately coalesce behind him.
That's what I've been thinking too billysumday.
McCain, although having no real staff left combined with, what, $53.94 in campaign funds, does have a lot of other things going for him:
The TV people (Mathews et al) love the guy ("He's a maverick!", "He's a straight shooter!")
The TV people also like playing up comebacks ("Could he be the GOP's version of Bill Clinton's Comeback Kid?").
He's not Mormon.
He's not easily pointed out as being nuts (like Ron Paul).
He has already kow-towed to the religious right in meeting with Dobson and the like.
He has foreign policy experience the others lack.
He wants to increase troop levels in Iraq and is still advocating strikes against Iran, regardless of the latest NIE (I think, but if not outright military action, he's still hawkish towards Iran).
If you knock out all the other candidates one by one based on their negatives (too Mormon, too crazy, too outsider Evangelical), McCain might just be the last guy standing.
And if he plays his cards right and does something like offer the VP spot to Huckabee as his (Huckabee's) campaign falters (under continued pressure from the traditional GOP media), McCain could cement a lot of the Evangelical vote as well.
I'm not saying this would be a GOOD thing mind you, but from a stratigic position, what other cards does the GOP establishment have to play?
posted by Relay at 12:58 PM on December 22, 2007
That's what I've been thinking too billysumday.
McCain, although having no real staff left combined with, what, $53.94 in campaign funds, does have a lot of other things going for him:
The TV people (Mathews et al) love the guy ("He's a maverick!", "He's a straight shooter!")
The TV people also like playing up comebacks ("Could he be the GOP's version of Bill Clinton's Comeback Kid?").
He's not Mormon.
He's not easily pointed out as being nuts (like Ron Paul).
He has already kow-towed to the religious right in meeting with Dobson and the like.
He has foreign policy experience the others lack.
He wants to increase troop levels in Iraq and is still advocating strikes against Iran, regardless of the latest NIE (I think, but if not outright military action, he's still hawkish towards Iran).
If you knock out all the other candidates one by one based on their negatives (too Mormon, too crazy, too outsider Evangelical), McCain might just be the last guy standing.
And if he plays his cards right and does something like offer the VP spot to Huckabee as his (Huckabee's) campaign falters (under continued pressure from the traditional GOP media), McCain could cement a lot of the Evangelical vote as well.
I'm not saying this would be a GOOD thing mind you, but from a stratigic position, what other cards does the GOP establishment have to play?
posted by Relay at 12:58 PM on December 22, 2007
I'm not arguing that Paul should win; I'm arguing that progressives should support his candidacy to destroy the Republicans,
Here's an idea, instead of coming up with strategies to kill the moribund beast, why don't the damned "progressives" give us something and someone to vote FOR.
At least Ron Paul is saying something different than rest of the Republicans and there is a fair chance he would govern differently. There is not a single candidate on the Democratic side about which the same can be confidently said.
posted by three blind mice at 1:03 PM on December 22, 2007 [3 favorites]
Here's an idea, instead of coming up with strategies to kill the moribund beast, why don't the damned "progressives" give us something and someone to vote FOR.
At least Ron Paul is saying something different than rest of the Republicans and there is a fair chance he would govern differently. There is not a single candidate on the Democratic side about which the same can be confidently said.
posted by three blind mice at 1:03 PM on December 22, 2007 [3 favorites]
And McCain, as shown by his slobbering fellating of the guy who slandered his "brown daughter", by kowtowing to the Christomammonists he denounced in 2000, and by caving on the torture he personally must know is wrong, has shown he'll do whatever he has to, whatever he's told to do by the string-pullers, to win.
What a pathetic trajectory for the former fighter pilot, and yet that trajectory may still land him at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
posted by orthogonality at 1:08 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
What a pathetic trajectory for the former fighter pilot, and yet that trajectory may still land him at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
posted by orthogonality at 1:08 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
""After your switch is flicked, it will take a a minimum of 8 years to fill up the ranks again, if you can find the professors to teach and the researchers to research.""
I guess this means we need to stop worrying about getting rid of Mexicans and start worrying about getting more Indian Phds.
posted by Megafly at 1:09 PM on December 22, 2007
Please give us Edwards or Obama v. Huckabee. Please, please, please Jeebus.
That will end the evangelical hegemony in American politics for a generation. Long enough to start us taxing the church-business in which they hide and plot.
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:13 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
That will end the evangelical hegemony in American politics for a generation. Long enough to start us taxing the church-business in which they hide and plot.
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:13 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
"What a pathetic trajectory for the former fighter pilot ... "
Not as bad as the trajectory that Randy "Duke" Cunningham has followed, orthogonality.
posted by Relay at 1:17 PM on December 22, 2007
Not as bad as the trajectory that Randy "Duke" Cunningham has followed, orthogonality.
posted by Relay at 1:17 PM on December 22, 2007
Sorry about McCain, but time has passed him by. Ron Paul and McCain are both 70+. Look at your dad, grandpa or elderly neighbor in that age group. How often is he ill? (Check how much time Eisenhower and Reagan were hospitalized or convalescent. Reagan was actually into senile dementia while still in office.)
How much in line with your thinking is the average 70-year-old person? Would you want him to make your life decisions for the next 4 or 8 years?
posted by Cranberry at 1:19 PM on December 22, 2007
How much in line with your thinking is the average 70-year-old person? Would you want him to make your life decisions for the next 4 or 8 years?
posted by Cranberry at 1:19 PM on December 22, 2007
...and start worrying about getting more Indian Phds.
If the following is representative, India's strong and growing position in global science and technology, the U.S. will have stiff competition (if it doesn't already) in attracting Indian PhDs.
If the following is representative, India's strong and growing position in global science and technology, the U.S. will have stiff competition (if it doesn't already) in attracting Indian PhDs.
Close to 20% of IBM's Employees Are Now In India.posted by ericb at 1:23 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
IBM Sees India As Its Global Hub by 2010.
So the GOP flatters evangelicals, and welcomes their votes, but doesn't let them seriously influence policy because doing so is a losing strategy.
things like all those anti-Roe SCOTUS nominee, creationism in schools, the sinking of stem cell research (Bush even vetoed a new stem cell bill), the funnelling of public money to the already untaxed churches (aka faith-based scams), the sinking of UN initiatives to promote birth control in the third world, the dismantling of the funding for the DoJ to protect the safety of abortion clinics??? all this stuff hasn't really registered with you since Reagan was elected?
have you been reading exclusively manga for the last 30 years thus avoiding the news?
fundies have gotten a lot back from the GOP, a lot, and they are now finally, after a 27 year long march, one vote away from reversing Roe. one vote away. they won't quit now. poor Justice Stevens cannot possibly resist another full Presidential mandate waiting for a Democrat to win in 2012 -- a Republican gets elected next year, Roe gets reversed.
(Besides, what are they going to do, vote for Democrats?)
no, for a third party candidate, a fundy Perot-like spoiler who'd tip the election over to the Democrats (yes, even to a black nominee, crazily enough). but as I said, they won't -- they might not be very well-read (they certainly flunk science) but fundies can certainly count. they take another Republican to the White House, they'll get Roe's head on a platter. they've been waiting since 1973, after all.
posted by matteo at 1:25 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
things like all those anti-Roe SCOTUS nominee, creationism in schools, the sinking of stem cell research (Bush even vetoed a new stem cell bill), the funnelling of public money to the already untaxed churches (aka faith-based scams), the sinking of UN initiatives to promote birth control in the third world, the dismantling of the funding for the DoJ to protect the safety of abortion clinics??? all this stuff hasn't really registered with you since Reagan was elected?
have you been reading exclusively manga for the last 30 years thus avoiding the news?
fundies have gotten a lot back from the GOP, a lot, and they are now finally, after a 27 year long march, one vote away from reversing Roe. one vote away. they won't quit now. poor Justice Stevens cannot possibly resist another full Presidential mandate waiting for a Democrat to win in 2012 -- a Republican gets elected next year, Roe gets reversed.
(Besides, what are they going to do, vote for Democrats?)
no, for a third party candidate, a fundy Perot-like spoiler who'd tip the election over to the Democrats (yes, even to a black nominee, crazily enough). but as I said, they won't -- they might not be very well-read (they certainly flunk science) but fundies can certainly count. they take another Republican to the White House, they'll get Roe's head on a platter. they've been waiting since 1973, after all.
posted by matteo at 1:25 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
You know, I almost hope they get Roe reversed. Because most states aren't going to outlaw abortion, and fundie attempts to do so outside of the South and a few states out West will either get Republicans thrown out of the statehouses or fundies thrown out of the Republican Party.
Now, in the Bible Belt (and Mormon Manacle), yeah, abortion will be outlawed. Fine. Good libs can offer to subsidize bus service to the free states, and "evangelize" the women who take up the offer. Yeah, it'll be coat-hanger bad for women in Jesus-land, but ultimately, that's the consequence for those women buying into fundie claptrap. Meanwhile, the fundie states will suffer as educated and motivated people vote with their feet.
posted by orthogonality at 1:35 PM on December 22, 2007
Now, in the Bible Belt (and Mormon Manacle), yeah, abortion will be outlawed. Fine. Good libs can offer to subsidize bus service to the free states, and "evangelize" the women who take up the offer. Yeah, it'll be coat-hanger bad for women in Jesus-land, but ultimately, that's the consequence for those women buying into fundie claptrap. Meanwhile, the fundie states will suffer as educated and motivated people vote with their feet.
posted by orthogonality at 1:35 PM on December 22, 2007
Ron Paul on the Huckabee "Floating Cross" ad: Sinclair Lewis said "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
I though the Fox News guy was going to choke...
posted by 445supermag at 1:39 PM on December 22, 2007 [3 favorites]
I though the Fox News guy was going to choke...
posted by 445supermag at 1:39 PM on December 22, 2007 [3 favorites]
I almost agree with orthogonality: maybe we've reached a point where the only path to true redemption is to let the the fundie/neocon scenario play itself out. Let them screw the pooch so completely that the populace, both bright and stupid-as-a-rock, will be left with such a bad taste in their mouth that that road will never be retrod.
(God would never let it get that bad, though.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:45 PM on December 22, 2007
(God would never let it get that bad, though.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:45 PM on December 22, 2007
If the alternatives are a solid 24+ years of Bush/Clintons vs. Huckabee . . . I'm going to have to think about this. Don't get me wrong, Clinton was the finest Republican president in my lifetime, but I am at the point of letting We The People get what We want . . . good and hard.
posted by panamax at 2:05 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by panamax at 2:05 PM on December 22, 2007
Wow Orthogonality not only do you live under the misguided impression that Christian core values are Republican talking points (and I don't even know why you brought up murder-by-spreadsheet, which has nothing to do with anything ... but you also think my loved ones should get to end their pregnancies with coat hangers just because we live here, and that's just peachy-keen.
Nice troll. You should move over to kuro5hin, they'll love ya there.
posted by localroger at 2:23 PM on December 22, 2007
Nice troll. You should move over to kuro5hin, they'll love ya there.
posted by localroger at 2:23 PM on December 22, 2007
Clinton was the finest Republican president in my lifetime.
I've often felt the same way.
posted by Relay at 2:25 PM on December 22, 2007
I've often felt the same way.
posted by Relay at 2:25 PM on December 22, 2007
Yeah, it'll be coat-hanger bad for women in Jesus-land, but ultimately, that's the consequence for those women buying into fundie claptrap.
The people who are likely to suffer most from any abortion ban are the poorest and most uneducated and disenfranchised. I think you're speaking in anger, and I can see why you're frustrated, and I can assure you that I'm frustrated too, but it still rubs me the wrong way when people seem so blithely indifferent to the pain and suffering of others. I live in the South, and I'm poor, and nearly everyone I care about has had their life affected by abortion.
posted by box at 2:46 PM on December 22, 2007
The people who are likely to suffer most from any abortion ban are the poorest and most uneducated and disenfranchised. I think you're speaking in anger, and I can see why you're frustrated, and I can assure you that I'm frustrated too, but it still rubs me the wrong way when people seem so blithely indifferent to the pain and suffering of others. I live in the South, and I'm poor, and nearly everyone I care about has had their life affected by abortion.
posted by box at 2:46 PM on December 22, 2007
McCain will get the nod. You're right, all of the others are a C+, but McCain is a B-. Additionally, he will fare the best in a general election. I don't know how they're going to sell McCain, but I do think the Republican forces will ultimately coalesce behind him.
Yeah, this is what I expect too.
posted by homunculus at 3:21 PM on December 22, 2007
Yeah, this is what I expect too.
posted by homunculus at 3:21 PM on December 22, 2007
I think McCain's candidacy is just sad. Up until a couple of years ago, he was considered moderate who really wasn't sure what was going on with the rest of his party, because, you know, he was considered very conservative when he first got into politics. His attempts during this campaign to woo the Republican base come across as both half-hearted and crazy, like he's brain washing himself to believe the duel insanities that are neo-conservativism and evangelicalism. Seriously, if you can find any information, go back and compare McCain's 2000 campaign and this one. He seems like he's completely lost his mind.
On that note, other than McCain, who I sort of have to believe is faking the crazy, I couldn't really rate the scariness of the Republican candidates. They're all so scary as to go right off the scale for me. Huckabee would be as devastating for the nation as Bush has been, I have no doubt, and just as corrupt, as his tenure in Arkansas has readily proven.
posted by Caduceus at 3:33 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
On that note, other than McCain, who I sort of have to believe is faking the crazy, I couldn't really rate the scariness of the Republican candidates. They're all so scary as to go right off the scale for me. Huckabee would be as devastating for the nation as Bush has been, I have no doubt, and just as corrupt, as his tenure in Arkansas has readily proven.
posted by Caduceus at 3:33 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
Glenn Greenwald on Rudy Giuliani: Authoritarian Temptation
posted by homunculus at 3:37 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 3:37 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
but ultimately, that's the consequence for those women buying into living near people who buy the fundie claptrap.
Fixed that for you. Also, WTF?
posted by delmoi at 3:38 PM on December 22, 2007
Fixed that for you. Also, WTF?
posted by delmoi at 3:38 PM on December 22, 2007
other than McCain, who I sort of have to believe is faking the crazy
He's not faking his love for the Iraq War.
posted by delmoi at 3:39 PM on December 22, 2007
He's not faking his love for the Iraq War.
posted by delmoi at 3:39 PM on December 22, 2007
If Roe were reversed and, say, Arkansas banned abortion, would the state also be able to ban people from travelling elsewhere for abortions? We have had that issue in Europe with the Republic of Ireland.
posted by athenian at 3:45 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by athenian at 3:45 PM on December 22, 2007
Huck's no populist. He's a Dominionist with a friendly face. See The Handmaid's Tale.
Can you cite a link for me re him being a Dominionist? Seriously. I am about as Christian as you can get but I am NOT a dominionist (I have serious theological reasons for that) and that branch of the faith tends to scare the everliving crap out of me.
Right now Fred Thompson scares me the least but that's not saying much.
posted by konolia at 3:52 PM on December 22, 2007
Can you cite a link for me re him being a Dominionist? Seriously. I am about as Christian as you can get but I am NOT a dominionist (I have serious theological reasons for that) and that branch of the faith tends to scare the everliving crap out of me.
Right now Fred Thompson scares me the least but that's not saying much.
posted by konolia at 3:52 PM on December 22, 2007
localroger writes "you also think my loved ones should get to end their pregnancies with coat hangers just because we live here, and that's just peachy-keen"
No, I think your loved ones should get off their asses and vote their true interests.
box writes "The people who are likely to suffer most from any abortion ban are the poorest and most uneducated and disenfranchised."
Yes, you're right, the Republican governor's daughter will fly first class to evil New York to get her pregnancy terminated in a sparkling clean private clinic, and it's the poor laborer's daughter who will die in the back alley, I know, and I don't like it either.
But that poor fundie laborer, instead of voting his interests, votes for tax breaks for Wall Street in a package deal that prevents my friends from getting married and sends the country to war.
And I can't save him (or his daughter) from himself.
We have a situation here where left-wing progressives, many of them in Blue States which won't outlaw abortion even if Roe is overturned, are donating money and time to preserve rights, like reproductive choice, for Red Staters who say they don't think anyone should have those rights. And in so doing, losing battles on issues that do affect Blue States.
In order to preserve these rights that are not realistically threatened in our Blue States, the left ends up (in the form, of say NARAL) endorsing Lieberman over Lamont. So we preserve reproductive rights, but keep a pro-war senator. My point is, Blue State liberals are paying high costs because Red Staters are unable to see how they're not voting their own interests, and that cost is getting to be too high. If Red Staters are intent on screwing themselves, I'd like to quarantine the damage to their own states, in hopes they realize the cost of the policies they insist on.
I take no pleasure in the damage the Red Staters insist on doing to themselves; it hurts the whole country. I'll take no pleasure in the back-alley abortions, or the hordes of kids "educated" in Creationism. But we're in a crisis, the ship is sinking, and I can't force those who say the answer is prayer into the lifeboats.
posted by orthogonality at 3:54 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
No, I think your loved ones should get off their asses and vote their true interests.
box writes "The people who are likely to suffer most from any abortion ban are the poorest and most uneducated and disenfranchised."
Yes, you're right, the Republican governor's daughter will fly first class to evil New York to get her pregnancy terminated in a sparkling clean private clinic, and it's the poor laborer's daughter who will die in the back alley, I know, and I don't like it either.
But that poor fundie laborer, instead of voting his interests, votes for tax breaks for Wall Street in a package deal that prevents my friends from getting married and sends the country to war.
And I can't save him (or his daughter) from himself.
We have a situation here where left-wing progressives, many of them in Blue States which won't outlaw abortion even if Roe is overturned, are donating money and time to preserve rights, like reproductive choice, for Red Staters who say they don't think anyone should have those rights. And in so doing, losing battles on issues that do affect Blue States.
In order to preserve these rights that are not realistically threatened in our Blue States, the left ends up (in the form, of say NARAL) endorsing Lieberman over Lamont. So we preserve reproductive rights, but keep a pro-war senator. My point is, Blue State liberals are paying high costs because Red Staters are unable to see how they're not voting their own interests, and that cost is getting to be too high. If Red Staters are intent on screwing themselves, I'd like to quarantine the damage to their own states, in hopes they realize the cost of the policies they insist on.
I take no pleasure in the damage the Red Staters insist on doing to themselves; it hurts the whole country. I'll take no pleasure in the back-alley abortions, or the hordes of kids "educated" in Creationism. But we're in a crisis, the ship is sinking, and I can't force those who say the answer is prayer into the lifeboats.
posted by orthogonality at 3:54 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
(ps: My husband said to tell you guys he met Huckabee two years ago at a Republican convention and the fellow didn't seem very presidential. He didn't "walk in to a room and light the place up." I guess what he means is the charisma quotient was low. In my opinion, that kind of an intangible may or may not be objectively important, but there is something to be said for the fact we the people seem to want our Chief Executives to project a certain something. Reagan had it, and Bill Clinton most certainly had it. )
posted by konolia at 3:57 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by konolia at 3:57 PM on December 22, 2007
konolia writes "Can you cite a link for me re him being a Dominionist? "
No, I can't. It's a guess based on strong circumstantial evidence.
posted by orthogonality at 3:59 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
No, I can't. It's a guess based on strong circumstantial evidence.
posted by orthogonality at 3:59 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
If he is truly a dominionist he'll be a postmillenialist. For those playing along at home, THOSE are the scary people.
posted by konolia at 4:07 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by konolia at 4:07 PM on December 22, 2007
orthoganality, my main point is that you seem to have a cartoon Madeleine Murray O'Hare view of how practicing Christians act. The ebb and flow of pluralities can make odd bedfellows and your reading of both Christian and Southern politics is so stupid simplistic that I dont' know quite where to begin.
Since I live in the South I know a lot of Christians, and I'd say most of them are appalled at a lot of the crap done in their name, but they go and vote for the candidates they're told to because they've been taught to focus on hot button issues like abortion and gay marriage. When you actually talk to them, you find that apart from these hot button issues their core values, which are usually really more important to them, are more in line with Democratic values.
I had a conversation the other day with one of these fundies explaining why I plan to vote for Edwards if I get a chance. After explaining my focus on labor, universal health care, getting us out of the war, and so on he said "You sound like a conservative!" The thing is on these issues I am a conservative; it's the modern Republican Party that's radical.
Yes, these people have been thick-headed and self-centered, but now that they've given the Republicans eight years of total control and they're still being fed the same old fears they are starting to see through it. Get them to think about it a bit and they'll tell you, with great sincerity -- often backed up by time-consuming and expensive volunteering and donations -- that they want to see the poor fed, the homeless sheltered, and the oppressed set free. They really have read the Bible, unlike their leaders. That's why even my pagan friends admitted that of all the people who came to our aid after Katrina, it was the Christians who were most effective.
The true nuts will probably go with a third party, which is fine because any form of defection on their part sinks the Republicans. But they are not a massive bloc of hardcore maniacs intent on making people die for the horrible crime of having sex. To think that of them is to commit exactly the same sin you accuse them of committing toward you.
posted by localroger at 4:11 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Since I live in the South I know a lot of Christians, and I'd say most of them are appalled at a lot of the crap done in their name, but they go and vote for the candidates they're told to because they've been taught to focus on hot button issues like abortion and gay marriage. When you actually talk to them, you find that apart from these hot button issues their core values, which are usually really more important to them, are more in line with Democratic values.
I had a conversation the other day with one of these fundies explaining why I plan to vote for Edwards if I get a chance. After explaining my focus on labor, universal health care, getting us out of the war, and so on he said "You sound like a conservative!" The thing is on these issues I am a conservative; it's the modern Republican Party that's radical.
Yes, these people have been thick-headed and self-centered, but now that they've given the Republicans eight years of total control and they're still being fed the same old fears they are starting to see through it. Get them to think about it a bit and they'll tell you, with great sincerity -- often backed up by time-consuming and expensive volunteering and donations -- that they want to see the poor fed, the homeless sheltered, and the oppressed set free. They really have read the Bible, unlike their leaders. That's why even my pagan friends admitted that of all the people who came to our aid after Katrina, it was the Christians who were most effective.
The true nuts will probably go with a third party, which is fine because any form of defection on their part sinks the Republicans. But they are not a massive bloc of hardcore maniacs intent on making people die for the horrible crime of having sex. To think that of them is to commit exactly the same sin you accuse them of committing toward you.
posted by localroger at 4:11 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
I find it hard to reconcile this:
Had we done that research, each one of us could look forward to an extra 20 years of lifespan. If you're over 30, the Bush years have already condemned you to an earlier death and probably greater poverty. Another evangel presidency means extending that to the kids presently in their twenties.
With this:
Now, in the Bible Belt (and Mormon Manacle), yeah, abortion will be outlawed. Fine. Good libs can offer to subsidize bus service to the free states, and "evangelize" the women who take up the offer. Yeah, it'll be coat-hanger bad for women in Jesus-land, but ultimately, that's the consequence for those women buying into fundie claptrap. Meanwhile, the fundie states will suffer as educated and motivated people vote with their feet.
Somehow, a deficiency of federal funding has irreparably damaged our research base, and has robbed of us our birthright to a 100% guaranteed 20 years of life, (dubious at best and based more on your wishful thinking/partisanship,) but a repeal of Roe and subsequent abortion bans with their actual, known death rates of woman based on actual data from pre-Roe America, would be no big deal no matter how many years it took to reverse, and anyway, women living in the wrong states deserve it anyway.
It's a little troubling that you seem to see a hypothetical breakthrough in research that is somehow only capable of being done in America (we're not the only country on the planet capable of doing stem-cell research,) that was retarded by an (admittedly large) deficiency in federal funding as a grevious wound that we will never recover from, robbed forever, as more worrisome than the actual death and destruction of lives brought on by abortion bans.
On preview:
Yes, you're right, the Republican governor's daughter will fly first class to evil New York to get her pregnancy terminated in a sparkling clean private clinic, and it's the poor laborer's daughter who will die in the back alley, I know, and I don't like it either.
But that poor fundie laborer, instead of voting his interests, votes for tax breaks for Wall Street in a package deal that prevents my friends from getting married and sends the country to war.
And I can't save him (or his daughter) from himself.
And it's not possible to live in a "Red State" and vote opposite of the majority of people? (Not to mention the more nuanced view on why people vote and their feelings on various matters that localroger brings up.) That a poor laborer will simply not vote her own interests, (as defined by some dude on the internet,) so she gets to suffer, eh? I mean, the people getting these abortions in these so-called "Red States" can't all be hypocrites, right? But, there not a demographic majority, so, fuck them! again, you're being awfully cavalier about something that you don't have to directly deal with, at the same time being rabidly angry about something that doesn't even exist. (Namely, your blue-sky 20 years of life and your cartoon view of a monolithic immoral Christianity.)
posted by Snyder at 4:21 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Had we done that research, each one of us could look forward to an extra 20 years of lifespan. If you're over 30, the Bush years have already condemned you to an earlier death and probably greater poverty. Another evangel presidency means extending that to the kids presently in their twenties.
With this:
Now, in the Bible Belt (and Mormon Manacle), yeah, abortion will be outlawed. Fine. Good libs can offer to subsidize bus service to the free states, and "evangelize" the women who take up the offer. Yeah, it'll be coat-hanger bad for women in Jesus-land, but ultimately, that's the consequence for those women buying into fundie claptrap. Meanwhile, the fundie states will suffer as educated and motivated people vote with their feet.
Somehow, a deficiency of federal funding has irreparably damaged our research base, and has robbed of us our birthright to a 100% guaranteed 20 years of life, (dubious at best and based more on your wishful thinking/partisanship,) but a repeal of Roe and subsequent abortion bans with their actual, known death rates of woman based on actual data from pre-Roe America, would be no big deal no matter how many years it took to reverse, and anyway, women living in the wrong states deserve it anyway.
It's a little troubling that you seem to see a hypothetical breakthrough in research that is somehow only capable of being done in America (we're not the only country on the planet capable of doing stem-cell research,) that was retarded by an (admittedly large) deficiency in federal funding as a grevious wound that we will never recover from, robbed forever, as more worrisome than the actual death and destruction of lives brought on by abortion bans.
On preview:
Yes, you're right, the Republican governor's daughter will fly first class to evil New York to get her pregnancy terminated in a sparkling clean private clinic, and it's the poor laborer's daughter who will die in the back alley, I know, and I don't like it either.
But that poor fundie laborer, instead of voting his interests, votes for tax breaks for Wall Street in a package deal that prevents my friends from getting married and sends the country to war.
And I can't save him (or his daughter) from himself.
And it's not possible to live in a "Red State" and vote opposite of the majority of people? (Not to mention the more nuanced view on why people vote and their feelings on various matters that localroger brings up.) That a poor laborer will simply not vote her own interests, (as defined by some dude on the internet,) so she gets to suffer, eh? I mean, the people getting these abortions in these so-called "Red States" can't all be hypocrites, right? But, there not a demographic majority, so, fuck them! again, you're being awfully cavalier about something that you don't have to directly deal with, at the same time being rabidly angry about something that doesn't even exist. (Namely, your blue-sky 20 years of life and your cartoon view of a monolithic immoral Christianity.)
posted by Snyder at 4:21 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Look, I don't want Roe overturned. I did write "almost". And I'm going to work hard to get a Democrat elected president so that doesn't happen. But if, despite my and many other progressives' best efforts, the Red Staters get what they've (collectively) voted for, and it ends up once again harming them, yes, I'll cry tears, but what the fuck else am I supposed to to do?
They've already succeeded in taking away embryonic stem cell funding, and we'll have to agree to disagree, but I think that's caused real harm to me personally.
Snyder writes "And it's not possible to live in a 'Red State' and vote opposite of the majority of people? "
Yeah, sure it is. again, I sympathize, I do. But even if Roe is overturned, abortion will still be available in the Blue States. Thanks to the majority of Red Staters, you can't get federal embryonic stem cell research funding in any state, you can't get an out of state gay marriage recognized in any state, you can't escape the consequences of the war in any state, you can't escape the effect of global warming anywhere.
And yes, I'm small-minded enough that I care a bit more about what hurts me directly than what hurts people more distant from me, especially when many of those who will be hurt are voting for precisely that, and against my interests as well. And yes, my priorities do put funding basic science ahead of state-by-state abortion rights. Sorry, but those are my priorities; I think science funding is critical for the continued strength of the country.
posted by orthogonality at 4:40 PM on December 22, 2007
They've already succeeded in taking away embryonic stem cell funding, and we'll have to agree to disagree, but I think that's caused real harm to me personally.
Snyder writes "And it's not possible to live in a 'Red State' and vote opposite of the majority of people? "
Yeah, sure it is. again, I sympathize, I do. But even if Roe is overturned, abortion will still be available in the Blue States. Thanks to the majority of Red Staters, you can't get federal embryonic stem cell research funding in any state, you can't get an out of state gay marriage recognized in any state, you can't escape the consequences of the war in any state, you can't escape the effect of global warming anywhere.
And yes, I'm small-minded enough that I care a bit more about what hurts me directly than what hurts people more distant from me, especially when many of those who will be hurt are voting for precisely that, and against my interests as well. And yes, my priorities do put funding basic science ahead of state-by-state abortion rights. Sorry, but those are my priorities; I think science funding is critical for the continued strength of the country.
posted by orthogonality at 4:40 PM on December 22, 2007
Christians are (by and large) about social control.
Just out of curiousity, who do you believe have been the members of the great movements for social justice in the United States? We're they all members of the 5% athiest minority? Were the justices who signed Roe vs. Wade members of a secret society who just briefly managed to pull one over on the nefarious Christians? How about the signers of the Bill of Rights? Everyone is happy to point to a few non-Christians, but the fact is that culture of freedom that typifies the United States was as much created by Christians as it is being torn down by them.
Christians make up more than 80% of the electorate, and yet we have repeatedly elected socially liberal presidents. How does that square with the idea that they're all about social control.
(oh, and because it's somewhat traditional to state one's affiliations at this point: I think invisible sky gods are a bit silly, but not significantly sillier than supporting Ron Paul)
posted by tkolar at 4:44 PM on December 22, 2007
Just out of curiousity, who do you believe have been the members of the great movements for social justice in the United States? We're they all members of the 5% athiest minority? Were the justices who signed Roe vs. Wade members of a secret society who just briefly managed to pull one over on the nefarious Christians? How about the signers of the Bill of Rights? Everyone is happy to point to a few non-Christians, but the fact is that culture of freedom that typifies the United States was as much created by Christians as it is being torn down by them.
Christians make up more than 80% of the electorate, and yet we have repeatedly elected socially liberal presidents. How does that square with the idea that they're all about social control.
(oh, and because it's somewhat traditional to state one's affiliations at this point: I think invisible sky gods are a bit silly, but not significantly sillier than supporting Ron Paul)
posted by tkolar at 4:44 PM on December 22, 2007
Well orthogonality I will repeat this: You are committing the same sin against others you accuse them of committing against you. That some of them use a broad brush to paint you and your friends doesn't make it right when you turn it around.
I'm sure if we met at random we'd find nearly all of our political beliefs in alignment; I too am a bit annoyed at the pervasiveness of religion in society, terrified at the ascendancy of the theocrats, pissed about the stem cell thing, and so on. But you have placed all of the people you perceive as disagreeing with you in a box -- us "red staters" -- and are reacting toward all of us with the outrage deserved only by a few. That, incidentally, is exactly what the people who bother you so much are doing to you.
Living in one of the reddest of those red states (and even more so after the NOLA diaspora) I can say with some authority that it's not nearly as red as you think. Yes, there are geographical areas where the neanderthals are in ascendance and control things, but that doesn't mean the whole state is like that much less the whole region, and you should be able to have the misfortune to have found a good job and career in a place overrun with redneck atavists without being tarred as one of them.
And as I've already written, when you start talking specific issues with those people you find that much of what they believe actually isn't so far from what you believe. When you get away from the loudmouth extremists who are creating and selling the agenda most of them are just following because nobody has told them they should examine it critically. Eight years of supposedly having what they asked for have gotten them thinking critically about their leaders, if not about their faith, and it's showing. About a year ago it started to be by ones and twos; people who know I'm an atheist progressive started approaching me when they knew nobody else was around and asking my opinion about stuff we used to not talk about for obvious reasons. Lately it's become more of a trickle.
I sense an impending flood.
There is much common ground between these people, the real Christians as opposed to the mouthpieces who have stolen their agenda for the last thirty years, and leftist social progressives. In private, even years ago many would allow as to how their church's position on sex education didn't make a lick of sense, but few of them would say it out loud because it's a big social club and ostracism was considered unthinkable. But the unthinkable is being thought a lot lately.
I think Edwards in particular has the potential to turn the whole South blue in the next presidential race. I think even Obama does, though many would call me crazy for saying so; what he lacks in whiteness he manages to make up for a lot in impassioned speechifying, something we've always appreciated down here. And I'd love to see your reaction to that.+
posted by localroger at 5:07 PM on December 22, 2007 [3 favorites]
I'm sure if we met at random we'd find nearly all of our political beliefs in alignment; I too am a bit annoyed at the pervasiveness of religion in society, terrified at the ascendancy of the theocrats, pissed about the stem cell thing, and so on. But you have placed all of the people you perceive as disagreeing with you in a box -- us "red staters" -- and are reacting toward all of us with the outrage deserved only by a few. That, incidentally, is exactly what the people who bother you so much are doing to you.
Living in one of the reddest of those red states (and even more so after the NOLA diaspora) I can say with some authority that it's not nearly as red as you think. Yes, there are geographical areas where the neanderthals are in ascendance and control things, but that doesn't mean the whole state is like that much less the whole region, and you should be able to have the misfortune to have found a good job and career in a place overrun with redneck atavists without being tarred as one of them.
And as I've already written, when you start talking specific issues with those people you find that much of what they believe actually isn't so far from what you believe. When you get away from the loudmouth extremists who are creating and selling the agenda most of them are just following because nobody has told them they should examine it critically. Eight years of supposedly having what they asked for have gotten them thinking critically about their leaders, if not about their faith, and it's showing. About a year ago it started to be by ones and twos; people who know I'm an atheist progressive started approaching me when they knew nobody else was around and asking my opinion about stuff we used to not talk about for obvious reasons. Lately it's become more of a trickle.
I sense an impending flood.
There is much common ground between these people, the real Christians as opposed to the mouthpieces who have stolen their agenda for the last thirty years, and leftist social progressives. In private, even years ago many would allow as to how their church's position on sex education didn't make a lick of sense, but few of them would say it out loud because it's a big social club and ostracism was considered unthinkable. But the unthinkable is being thought a lot lately.
I think Edwards in particular has the potential to turn the whole South blue in the next presidential race. I think even Obama does, though many would call me crazy for saying so; what he lacks in whiteness he manages to make up for a lot in impassioned speechifying, something we've always appreciated down here. And I'd love to see your reaction to that.+
posted by localroger at 5:07 PM on December 22, 2007 [3 favorites]
In Kansas and the Bible-Belt, creationism means that high school seniors can't even take Biology 101 without remedial retraining. Elsewhere, No Child Left behind has produced kids who can take tests but who can't think critically. As the Boomers retire, we're left with a knowledge gap that extends from college freshman to TA to grad student to untenured faculty to research scientist. Even if we do rededicate ourselves to doing science, there will be too few practioners able to teach the next generation. Not everyone can go to decent schools, and the science faculties of the state colleges will be broken and scattered. We'll still tach science at MIT and Berkely, but the cutters of wood and hewers of water, the lab assistants and so forth, will be lacking.
orthogonality, do you have any citations for that? Those are a bunch of bold, sweeping statements that smack of over-dramatic hyperbole to me, and I'm certain you and I agree quite a bit politically.
I'm a professor, and before that a school teacher, and I can assure you that American kids by and large lost any ability to think critically well before No Child Left Behind (if they ever had it en masse).
I know professors at KU, and haven't heard anything about mass remediation pre-Biology 101.
I also have heard nothing of a shortage of well-qualified undergraduate or graduate applicants to our nation's finest universities--in fact, I more often hear that MIT, the Ivies, Caltech, etc., are having record numbers of excellent, qualified applicants. There is also not only a PhD glut, but a post-Doc glut in the sciences--we're actually training more scientists than we're able to employ, and that trend is over a decade old.
While I agree that things are bad, and the Bush presidency has set us back years, I think the Chicken Little eschatology is more than a little over the top; unless you have some numbers/citations to back up such horrific scenarios, I remain very skeptical.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:14 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
orthogonality, do you have any citations for that? Those are a bunch of bold, sweeping statements that smack of over-dramatic hyperbole to me, and I'm certain you and I agree quite a bit politically.
I'm a professor, and before that a school teacher, and I can assure you that American kids by and large lost any ability to think critically well before No Child Left Behind (if they ever had it en masse).
I know professors at KU, and haven't heard anything about mass remediation pre-Biology 101.
I also have heard nothing of a shortage of well-qualified undergraduate or graduate applicants to our nation's finest universities--in fact, I more often hear that MIT, the Ivies, Caltech, etc., are having record numbers of excellent, qualified applicants. There is also not only a PhD glut, but a post-Doc glut in the sciences--we're actually training more scientists than we're able to employ, and that trend is over a decade old.
While I agree that things are bad, and the Bush presidency has set us back years, I think the Chicken Little eschatology is more than a little over the top; unless you have some numbers/citations to back up such horrific scenarios, I remain very skeptical.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:14 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
On preview, I agree, localroger, Edwards could be a very strong candidate throughout the south and southeast. I think Obama could be a game-changing candidate, too. (Louisiana, my home state and famously insular, just elected this guy governor.)
I also think that the Republican nomination may go to McCain by default, and the Des Moines Register and Boston Globe endorsements are only the first of many for him.
Finally, Huckabee is loony, and no matter what early success he may have, he'll be toast post-South Carolina. Unless this country really is nuts.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:18 PM on December 22, 2007
I also think that the Republican nomination may go to McCain by default, and the Des Moines Register and Boston Globe endorsements are only the first of many for him.
Finally, Huckabee is loony, and no matter what early success he may have, he'll be toast post-South Carolina. Unless this country really is nuts.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:18 PM on December 22, 2007
I know professors at KU
The issue isn't at the university level ["yet", he asides knowingly], but at the local school board and textbook/curriculum development.
The DI got handed another setback earlier this year, but these people are still there, eg. in Texas where a school muckity-muck was recently shown the door for forwarding an anti-DI-related email thingy.
posted by panamax at 5:21 PM on December 22, 2007
The issue isn't at the university level ["yet", he asides knowingly], but at the local school board and textbook/curriculum development.
The DI got handed another setback earlier this year, but these people are still there, eg. in Texas where a school muckity-muck was recently shown the door for forwarding an anti-DI-related email thingy.
posted by panamax at 5:21 PM on December 22, 2007
How about the signers of the Bill of Rights?
Actually, a lot of those guys were non-Christian Deists. Jefferson was a major backer of the Bill of Rights and he wasn't a Christian, at least in his later life. (IIRC my high school history class)
posted by delmoi at 5:21 PM on December 22, 2007
Actually, a lot of those guys were non-Christian Deists. Jefferson was a major backer of the Bill of Rights and he wasn't a Christian, at least in his later life. (IIRC my high school history class)
posted by delmoi at 5:21 PM on December 22, 2007
Unless this country really is nuts.
cough
posted by panamax at 5:22 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
cough
posted by panamax at 5:22 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
not only do you live under the misguided impression that Christian core values are Republican talking points
Bush's 4 strongest demes in 2004 were Walmart shoppers, Christian evangelicals, hereditary billionaires, and the ultra-orthodox zionists in NY (all clocking in at ~80%).
Republican talking points have modelled themselves on Christianist hot-button issues -- public piety (the traditional ceremonial Christianism in society), right-to-life of the fetus. These are easy give-aways to get that ~20% bloc of issues voters enthusiastically in your column on election day.
posted by panamax at 5:35 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Bush's 4 strongest demes in 2004 were Walmart shoppers, Christian evangelicals, hereditary billionaires, and the ultra-orthodox zionists in NY (all clocking in at ~80%).
Republican talking points have modelled themselves on Christianist hot-button issues -- public piety (the traditional ceremonial Christianism in society), right-to-life of the fetus. These are easy give-aways to get that ~20% bloc of issues voters enthusiastically in your column on election day.
posted by panamax at 5:35 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Hey LooseFilter, greetz from Mandeville :-) And yes, I predicted Jindal would win too, for similar if opposite-pointing reasons.
posted by localroger at 5:47 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by localroger at 5:47 PM on December 22, 2007
panamax, you give it away; it's a 20% bloc. Yet 80% of the population is Christian. So while it is a problem of people who call themselves Christians, it is obviously not entirely a problem of actual Christians.
posted by localroger at 5:49 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by localroger at 5:49 PM on December 22, 2007
There is much common ground between these people, the real Christians as opposed to the mouthpieces who have stolen their agenda for the last thirty years, and leftist social progressives.
As it should be (and has been in the past). Christians are not, and have never been, the problem. Evangelical Christians willing to use the ballot box as a pummel are the problem, as are the politicians and electorate that don't call them on it. Christian theology is not a legitimate basis for policy in a secular country based on the rule of law. There's a reason why our Constitution forbids a religious test for office seekers. There's a reason why our goverment is forbidden from favoring religion through the Establishment Clause. There's a reason why religious freedom is in the first Amendment.
Slouching toward theocracy is slow-motion treason in my book. It's not good Christianity, either: Render unto Caesar, and all that ...
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:27 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
As it should be (and has been in the past). Christians are not, and have never been, the problem. Evangelical Christians willing to use the ballot box as a pummel are the problem, as are the politicians and electorate that don't call them on it. Christian theology is not a legitimate basis for policy in a secular country based on the rule of law. There's a reason why our Constitution forbids a religious test for office seekers. There's a reason why our goverment is forbidden from favoring religion through the Establishment Clause. There's a reason why religious freedom is in the first Amendment.
Slouching toward theocracy is slow-motion treason in my book. It's not good Christianity, either: Render unto Caesar, and all that ...
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:27 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
Yet 80% of the population is Christian
this is, shall we say, debatable. 4 out of 5 people no doubt came into contact with the established church growing up, but eg. a strongly religious person like konolia would not consider these people actually Christians in accord to the Statement of Faith of her church, which of course defines who and who isn't an actual true Christian.
Another breakdown from the 2004 exit polling referenced by reported chuch attendance:
More Than Weekly (16%) Bush 64%, Kerry 35%
Weekly (26%) Bush 58%, Kerry 41%
Monthly (14%) Bush 50% , Kerry 49%
A Few Times a Year (28%) Bush 45%, Kerry 54%
Never (15%) Bush 36%, Kerry 62%
In this polling over half the respondents report they attend services at least monthly. Research indicates this is overstated by a factor of 2 or so.
posted by panamax at 6:45 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
this is, shall we say, debatable. 4 out of 5 people no doubt came into contact with the established church growing up, but eg. a strongly religious person like konolia would not consider these people actually Christians in accord to the Statement of Faith of her church, which of course defines who and who isn't an actual true Christian.
Another breakdown from the 2004 exit polling referenced by reported chuch attendance:
More Than Weekly (16%) Bush 64%, Kerry 35%
Weekly (26%) Bush 58%, Kerry 41%
Monthly (14%) Bush 50% , Kerry 49%
A Few Times a Year (28%) Bush 45%, Kerry 54%
Never (15%) Bush 36%, Kerry 62%
In this polling over half the respondents report they attend services at least monthly. Research indicates this is overstated by a factor of 2 or so.
posted by panamax at 6:45 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Well panamax the school of thought that you must accept such a statement of faith and attend church more often than every Easter is promulgated by those very whackjobs who give the whole meme-set a bad name.
Fact is, about 80% of the population call themselves and consider themselves Christian, whether a minority of nutcases agree with them or not.
(And I can't believe I've gone on this long defending them, but it's just fucking annoying.)
posted by localroger at 7:09 PM on December 22, 2007
Fact is, about 80% of the population call themselves and consider themselves Christian, whether a minority of nutcases agree with them or not.
(And I can't believe I've gone on this long defending them, but it's just fucking annoying.)
posted by localroger at 7:09 PM on December 22, 2007
Back to the Dominionist thing. Hucky raised money last week at an event co-hosted by evangel leaders who believe that:
opposing the Iraq War is treason
"this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia."
A wife may work outside the home only with her husband’s consent
"Biblical spanking" that results in "temporary or superficial bruises or welts" should not be considered a crime
and that
No doctor shall provide medical service on the Sabbath
posted by orthogonality at 7:12 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
and that
posted by orthogonality at 7:12 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Slouching toward theocracy is slow-motion treason in my book. It's not good Christianity, either: Render unto Caesar, and all that ...
Yes, definitely--I also think that the separation of church and state is as much for the protection of the church. I think many Christians (at least, many whom I know) are realizing that the extraordinary political activism from pulpits and congregations has had--to say the least--deleterious effects on the faith itself.
greetz from Mandeville :-) Hey there, localroger! I grew up in Lafayette, am here for Xmas (but live in CA).
panamax: I remain somewhat distrustful of polls like that--in the articles that report on them, the actual phrasing of the questions is not included, and is often specious. ('Do you believe in God?' is very vague question, for instance.) Which is not to say that all of this isn't a serious problem--obviously, the wall between church and state in the U.S. has been seriously eroded, and we likely will have some serious work to build it back up, but the kind of reactionary, doomsday rhetoric I was responding to earlier is, to my mind, unproductive and inaccurate.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:23 PM on December 22, 2007
Yes, definitely--I also think that the separation of church and state is as much for the protection of the church. I think many Christians (at least, many whom I know) are realizing that the extraordinary political activism from pulpits and congregations has had--to say the least--deleterious effects on the faith itself.
greetz from Mandeville :-) Hey there, localroger! I grew up in Lafayette, am here for Xmas (but live in CA).
panamax: I remain somewhat distrustful of polls like that--in the articles that report on them, the actual phrasing of the questions is not included, and is often specious. ('Do you believe in God?' is very vague question, for instance.) Which is not to say that all of this isn't a serious problem--obviously, the wall between church and state in the U.S. has been seriously eroded, and we likely will have some serious work to build it back up, but the kind of reactionary, doomsday rhetoric I was responding to earlier is, to my mind, unproductive and inaccurate.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:23 PM on December 22, 2007
I wonder how many people have actually worked WITHIN a poitical campaign. I mean deep within.
I have, and it put me off politics for life. While helping to get the NDP re-elected in British Columbia in 1996 I worked for a person who became an influential cabinet minister. The thing about political parties is that they provide that "c'mon, doncha want to just hang out with us?" vibe, especially among young, active people. Who wouldn't want a taste of the inside? Isn't it everything you actually wanted out of high school? To be in the in crowd?
And my experience of being in the in crowd was one part dehumanizing and one part vengeful. The first thing that happens is that you start seeing people as market segements, voting blocks, only useful to the project and dispensible after that. You promise the world to little old ladies on the phone because all you care about is their votes. You know they'll never phone back later and complain that you lied to them. Who cares? Too many voters to call, too many ines to shill, too many votes to get. polictics is not about people. It's about numbers. At least Karl Rove was right about that.
And then, once you've been sucked in, the next step is easy. You start in with the pack mentality demonizing of everyone who isn't within your circle. And in my experience, that included both other political parties AND other people within your own party. You become consumed by the narcissism of small difference. You even scorn the little old ladies that you played for suckers during the campaign. And power sweetened with vengeance tastes pretty good. It's shameful.
People, trust me. Politics is a fucking cult. Your milage my vary (but probably not by much). The punchline is that is is truly the only thing that joins together all the parties and al the campaigns. They all act like that, and the more that is at stake, the better chance they have of grabbing power, the worse it gets.
Yes, even Huckabee. Welcome to numerocracy.
posted by salishsea at 8:22 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
I have, and it put me off politics for life. While helping to get the NDP re-elected in British Columbia in 1996 I worked for a person who became an influential cabinet minister. The thing about political parties is that they provide that "c'mon, doncha want to just hang out with us?" vibe, especially among young, active people. Who wouldn't want a taste of the inside? Isn't it everything you actually wanted out of high school? To be in the in crowd?
And my experience of being in the in crowd was one part dehumanizing and one part vengeful. The first thing that happens is that you start seeing people as market segements, voting blocks, only useful to the project and dispensible after that. You promise the world to little old ladies on the phone because all you care about is their votes. You know they'll never phone back later and complain that you lied to them. Who cares? Too many voters to call, too many ines to shill, too many votes to get. polictics is not about people. It's about numbers. At least Karl Rove was right about that.
And then, once you've been sucked in, the next step is easy. You start in with the pack mentality demonizing of everyone who isn't within your circle. And in my experience, that included both other political parties AND other people within your own party. You become consumed by the narcissism of small difference. You even scorn the little old ladies that you played for suckers during the campaign. And power sweetened with vengeance tastes pretty good. It's shameful.
People, trust me. Politics is a fucking cult. Your milage my vary (but probably not by much). The punchline is that is is truly the only thing that joins together all the parties and al the campaigns. They all act like that, and the more that is at stake, the better chance they have of grabbing power, the worse it gets.
Yes, even Huckabee. Welcome to numerocracy.
posted by salishsea at 8:22 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
I think many Christians (at least, many whom I know) are realizing that the extraordinary political activism from pulpits and congregations has had--to say the least--deleterious effects on the faith itself.Those are the crocodile tears of the narcissist who stabs his coworkers in the back, yet doesn't manage to get the promotion after all. He isn't seeing the error of his ways -- he's just annoyed that the machiavellian maneuvering didn't pay off. Don't make excuses for them, don't comfort them, don't coddle them. It sucks to be them, and they made it that way. Leaving them disenfranchised as a group is for the best.
posted by verb at 8:29 PM on December 22, 2007 [3 favorites]
...or, for that matter, scratch Clinton or Romney to see that they're say anythingists as long as it gets them elected.
Concord (NH) Monitor:
Concord (NH) Monitor:
Romney Should Not Be The Next Presidentposted by ericb at 8:50 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
"If you were building a Republican presidential candidate from a kit, imagine what pieces you might use: an athletic build, ramrod posture, Reaganesque hair, a charismatic speaking style and a crisp dark suit. You'd add a beautiful wife and family, a wildly successful business career and just enough executive government experience. You'd pour in some old GOP bromides - spending cuts and lower taxes - plus some new positions for 2008: anti-immigrant rhetoric and a focus on faith.
Add it all up and you get Mitt Romney, a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped.
...When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.
Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no."
Those are the crocodile tears of the narcissist who stabs his coworkers in the back, yet doesn't manage to get the promotion after all.
Paint with a broad brush, much? A co-worker with whom I have regular, open, and lively political conversations on a regular basis is also a born-again Christian. Over the past 7 years, his political perspective has been radically altered, permanently. His biggest error, according to him (and me), was one of judgment stemming from simply being naive: he trusted that our political leaders told the truth, at least most of the time. Stupid, I know, but most people are pretty trusting (especially really religious ones)--I've learned, partly through my conversations with this person, that my native cynicism is actually fairly uncommon; most people are apparently pretty credulous.
Now, however, he admits that he is "ashamed and embarrassed" that he ever voted for George W. Bush, ever supported the Iraq war etc., doesn't know if he can ever vote Republican again, and really likes Barack Obama in the primaries. He no longer cares what any candidate says about faith, ever: he realizes that his faith was used to manipulate him.
I realize that this is just one person, but talking with my students, friends, and family, they hear (or relate personally) similar stories, and I think it's indicative that many, many people feel the same way my co-worker does.
My point in all of this is that most of the people motivated to vote a particular way because of their religious faith are not malicious, theocratic individuals; they also are becoming increasingly aware that they have been manipulated by people who are. If my co-worker has finally waked up to reality, and sees what's been happening in this country for what it really is, I simply cannot hate him, dismiss him, or punish him for his previous credulity. I am thankful that he is becoming more critical and less trusting of our political system and those in it, and now I can engage him in a much broader range of discussion on things we previously had no common frame of reference for, and he listens to what I say much more closely because he knows I was right about GWB et al, all along.
Which is great, because he and I and everybody else in this country still have to live together, and figure out how to get along no matter how poisonous and divisive the past decade or so has been. I cannot return judgment with more judgment, so, verb, when you say: "Leaving them disenfranchised as a group is for the best", I must disagree very strongly: to leave them disenfranchised is to perpetuate a divided, feuding society, and that is not how I want to live.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:17 PM on December 22, 2007
Paint with a broad brush, much? A co-worker with whom I have regular, open, and lively political conversations on a regular basis is also a born-again Christian. Over the past 7 years, his political perspective has been radically altered, permanently. His biggest error, according to him (and me), was one of judgment stemming from simply being naive: he trusted that our political leaders told the truth, at least most of the time. Stupid, I know, but most people are pretty trusting (especially really religious ones)--I've learned, partly through my conversations with this person, that my native cynicism is actually fairly uncommon; most people are apparently pretty credulous.
Now, however, he admits that he is "ashamed and embarrassed" that he ever voted for George W. Bush, ever supported the Iraq war etc., doesn't know if he can ever vote Republican again, and really likes Barack Obama in the primaries. He no longer cares what any candidate says about faith, ever: he realizes that his faith was used to manipulate him.
I realize that this is just one person, but talking with my students, friends, and family, they hear (or relate personally) similar stories, and I think it's indicative that many, many people feel the same way my co-worker does.
My point in all of this is that most of the people motivated to vote a particular way because of their religious faith are not malicious, theocratic individuals; they also are becoming increasingly aware that they have been manipulated by people who are. If my co-worker has finally waked up to reality, and sees what's been happening in this country for what it really is, I simply cannot hate him, dismiss him, or punish him for his previous credulity. I am thankful that he is becoming more critical and less trusting of our political system and those in it, and now I can engage him in a much broader range of discussion on things we previously had no common frame of reference for, and he listens to what I say much more closely because he knows I was right about GWB et al, all along.
Which is great, because he and I and everybody else in this country still have to live together, and figure out how to get along no matter how poisonous and divisive the past decade or so has been. I cannot return judgment with more judgment, so, verb, when you say: "Leaving them disenfranchised as a group is for the best", I must disagree very strongly: to leave them disenfranchised is to perpetuate a divided, feuding society, and that is not how I want to live.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:17 PM on December 22, 2007
Paint with a broad brush, much?Yes, very broad. I spent most of my life in the Evangelical world, advocating the causes, going door to door for the candidates, helping raise the money, praying for the bills and the elections, publishing "alerts" and generally being a good little soldier. I look back on that time in my life and, frankly, it doesn't make me embarrassed. It makes me sick. I worked hard to help build a movement that has done more damage to our country, to the lives of individuals who live in it and serve it, than any other I can think of in decades.
Realizing that politicians lied to them is all well and good -- we're lucky that politicians lied to the religious political right, otherwise we would be living in a theocracy right now. Like neoconservatives, their ideas and goals are the poisonously flawed ones that should be held up as an example of damning, destructive hubris and selfishness.
I cannot return judgment with more judgment, so, verb, when you say: "Leaving them disenfranchised as a group is for the best", I must disagree very strongly: to leave them disenfranchised is to perpetuate a divided, feuding society, and that is not how I want to live.The're perfectly welcome to leave the group in question.
Am I irrational, angry, and embittered? Yeah. I am. Am I saying things that, months and years from now, I will probably shake my head sadly at? Doubtless. And I apologize. I spent a long, long time in that world, though, and I have very little sympathy for the people who are only having second thoughts after the wheels fall off the movement.
posted by verb at 5:19 AM on December 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
I spent most of my life in the Evangelical world
I see where you're coming from now, your anger makes a lot more sense. I should also clarify that my comment above was about someone who isn't active as a movement evangelical, as you were--he's just a devout churchgoer. My sense is that there are many more like my co-worker, whose activism is mostly contained in their voting, which is changing.
I would have less sympathy if he had actively been campaigning to repeal liberties, etc. When I've had glimpses into the movement evangelical world (a youth orchestra student forwarded an email chain from an uncle once, etc.), the unbridled hate toward the rest of us is pretty disturbing, I must admit. Confronted with that more directly, I would have a less tempered response, as hate and judgment is intolerable.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:39 AM on December 23, 2007
I see where you're coming from now, your anger makes a lot more sense. I should also clarify that my comment above was about someone who isn't active as a movement evangelical, as you were--he's just a devout churchgoer. My sense is that there are many more like my co-worker, whose activism is mostly contained in their voting, which is changing.
I would have less sympathy if he had actively been campaigning to repeal liberties, etc. When I've had glimpses into the movement evangelical world (a youth orchestra student forwarded an email chain from an uncle once, etc.), the unbridled hate toward the rest of us is pretty disturbing, I must admit. Confronted with that more directly, I would have a less tempered response, as hate and judgment is intolerable.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:39 AM on December 23, 2007
LooseFilter, thanks for your understanding. After some coffee and some cool-down time I took a look at what I posted and I do cringe a bit. I still struggle with how to regard the distinction between well-intentioned individuals whose beliefs are easily exploited... and people whose very goals and ideals are explicitly destructive and dangerous.
Over time I've come to the conclusion that a large number of people are fundamentally decent, compassionate individuals, and that this is not motivated by any particular religious beliefs. Rather, I feel those religious beliefs give them a language with which to articulate those fundamentally decent convictions and compassions. It's the responsibility of those individuals to ensure that they aren't convinced to support ugly, destructive things simply because the person advocating them speaks the same language.
posted by verb at 8:55 AM on December 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
Over time I've come to the conclusion that a large number of people are fundamentally decent, compassionate individuals, and that this is not motivated by any particular religious beliefs. Rather, I feel those religious beliefs give them a language with which to articulate those fundamentally decent convictions and compassions. It's the responsibility of those individuals to ensure that they aren't convinced to support ugly, destructive things simply because the person advocating them speaks the same language.
posted by verb at 8:55 AM on December 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
They're just gonna make Huckabee the VP, and "the easily led" will go along as always. Huckabee knows this too--and i bet he's personally aiming for it.
The obedience many on the religious right have to their pastors and to all authoritarian figures is very deeply rooted and has been reinforced by all the GOP get out the votes programs aimed at them.
posted by amberglow at 11:25 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
The obedience many on the religious right have to their pastors and to all authoritarian figures is very deeply rooted and has been reinforced by all the GOP get out the votes programs aimed at them.
posted by amberglow at 11:25 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
amberglow writes "The obedience many on the religious right have to their pastors and to all authoritarian figures is very deeply rooted "
Yeah, it's funny: the historical Jesus was an anti-establishment radical protester (remember the throwing the money-changers out of the temple?) who got the death penalty for it. And yet his "followers" have an almost knee-jerk deference to authority figures, both temporal and religious.
(And whether a church hierarchy (Catholics, High-Church Protestants) or a "prophet" (low-church Protestants) or to both (Mormons)).
posted by orthogonality at 11:45 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it's funny: the historical Jesus was an anti-establishment radical protester (remember the throwing the money-changers out of the temple?) who got the death penalty for it. And yet his "followers" have an almost knee-jerk deference to authority figures, both temporal and religious.
(And whether a church hierarchy (Catholics, High-Church Protestants) or a "prophet" (low-church Protestants) or to both (Mormons)).
posted by orthogonality at 11:45 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it's funny: the historical Jesus was an anti-establishment radical protester ...
Not funny at all tho, since it's already damaging this country enormously (and the wider world too, thru abstinence only funding, and causing death and destruction all over the world, etc)
Huckabee's running explicitly as a "Christian Leader". And he's already made clear he puts the Bible way way above the Constitution, while also at the same time being openly proud of his death penalty record in Arkansas and seeing no contradiction at all in that--a very dangerous and not-at-all Christ-like mix. And i won't even get into his recent praising of the lavish conditions at Gitmo and how they treat prisoners so much better than he himself did--or the many many other similar and glaring inconsistencies.
posted by amberglow at 12:09 PM on December 23, 2007
Not funny at all tho, since it's already damaging this country enormously (and the wider world too, thru abstinence only funding, and causing death and destruction all over the world, etc)
Huckabee's running explicitly as a "Christian Leader". And he's already made clear he puts the Bible way way above the Constitution, while also at the same time being openly proud of his death penalty record in Arkansas and seeing no contradiction at all in that--a very dangerous and not-at-all Christ-like mix. And i won't even get into his recent praising of the lavish conditions at Gitmo and how they treat prisoners so much better than he himself did--or the many many other similar and glaring inconsistencies.
posted by amberglow at 12:09 PM on December 23, 2007
Well orthogonality, it's not like the Church has anything to do with the historical Jeshua ben Miram of Nazareth. First there was that dust-up when the Romans sacked Jerusalem, and since most of the people who closely followed his beliefs lived there that pretty much ended that. His legacy was then continued by whackjobs like that misogynist dirtbag Paul, who perverted his teachings in more than a few ways, not least of all by adding the idea (which he'd as a devout Jew no doubt found horribly blasphemous) that he was personally the son of God. Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, there was that big meeting Constantine called in Nicea where they cherry-picked his teachings to turn his cult into an efficient instrument of social control. It was then over a thousand years before regular laypeople were allowed, much less expected, to read those cherry-picked teachings for themselves. And when Martin Luther and others tried to step out of that authoritarian tradition, few of them have ever had the grasp or boldness to step quite far enough.
posted by localroger at 12:16 PM on December 23, 2007 [5 favorites]
posted by localroger at 12:16 PM on December 23, 2007 [5 favorites]
localroger, that's a pretty damn good summary right there. It does astound me that more contemporary Christians don't see the disconnect, though--even with all of the control, obfuscation, and complete changes to much of Jesus' original teachings by various individuals and institutions, it's still pretty obvious that he was a radical, anti-authoritarian liberal, who would be appalled at the hate and judgment preached in his name. Which I suppose is why the emphasis in most churches these days is on the supernatural parts of the story, because focusing on belief in those distracts--pretty effectively, apparently--from any sort of critical attention to the actual social message of Jesus' teaching.
amberglow: Huckabee's running explicitly as a "Christian Leader". And he's already made clear he puts the Bible way way above the Constitution
Do you really think he'll get any traction once he receives real national scrutiny? I think he's gained traction by speaking (preaching) to the Republican base, but will be self-evidently loony once on a larger stage like the bigger primaries. I think it's really just the press and the very politically aware who are even really paying attention right now. GWB was never explicit about his pandering to the religious right, using all the code and so forth, and cloaked his first national campaign in that 'compassionate conservative' bullshit. Huckabee puts his biblical worldview right up front, every time, and I think that's his biggest mistake.
Also, verb, you wrote "It's the responsibility of those individuals to ensure that they aren't convinced to support ugly, destructive things simply because the person advocating them speaks the same language." Well said, and that should be shouted from the rooftops every day, and is the real message those of us in the secular world should be conveying, rather than challenging their faith itself, I think.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:49 PM on December 23, 2007
amberglow: Huckabee's running explicitly as a "Christian Leader". And he's already made clear he puts the Bible way way above the Constitution
Do you really think he'll get any traction once he receives real national scrutiny? I think he's gained traction by speaking (preaching) to the Republican base, but will be self-evidently loony once on a larger stage like the bigger primaries. I think it's really just the press and the very politically aware who are even really paying attention right now. GWB was never explicit about his pandering to the religious right, using all the code and so forth, and cloaked his first national campaign in that 'compassionate conservative' bullshit. Huckabee puts his biblical worldview right up front, every time, and I think that's his biggest mistake.
Also, verb, you wrote "It's the responsibility of those individuals to ensure that they aren't convinced to support ugly, destructive things simply because the person advocating them speaks the same language." Well said, and that should be shouted from the rooftops every day, and is the real message those of us in the secular world should be conveying, rather than challenging their faith itself, I think.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:49 PM on December 23, 2007
Do you really think he'll get any traction once he receives real national scrutiny? I think he's gained traction by speaking (preaching) to the Republican base, but will be self-evidently loony once on a larger stage like the bigger primaries. I think it's really just the press and the very politically aware who are even really paying attention right now. GWB was never explicit about his pandering to the religious right, using all the code and so forth, and cloaked his first national campaign in that 'compassionate conservative' bullshit. Huckabee puts his biblical worldview right up front, every time, and I think that's his biggest mistake.
Well, the GOP establishment won't let him be on top of the ticket--even if he wins every single primary--so if by some miracle they fail, and he was on top, he'd just run to the center, and more on his record as Governor (and there's tons of dirt there to kill him with too) while still doing all that codeword bs. Primary GOP voters are loving him--and that's because the GOP's base is mostly rightwing Christians. There aren't enough rich GOPers or enough Nat'l Security GOPers to do it--they have to have the religious Christians---especially now that they've gone explicitly anti-Hispanic as a party.
Don't ever forget that the majority of the GOP base still believe that Bush is a good Christian, even after years of unChristian actions. You can't win an election with just the base tho--and the GOP Establishment is attacking now because of that fact--they'll make him VP and that willl keep the religious in the fold.
posted by amberglow at 1:03 PM on December 23, 2007
Well, the GOP establishment won't let him be on top of the ticket--even if he wins every single primary--so if by some miracle they fail, and he was on top, he'd just run to the center, and more on his record as Governor (and there's tons of dirt there to kill him with too) while still doing all that codeword bs. Primary GOP voters are loving him--and that's because the GOP's base is mostly rightwing Christians. There aren't enough rich GOPers or enough Nat'l Security GOPers to do it--they have to have the religious Christians---especially now that they've gone explicitly anti-Hispanic as a party.
Don't ever forget that the majority of the GOP base still believe that Bush is a good Christian, even after years of unChristian actions. You can't win an election with just the base tho--and the GOP Establishment is attacking now because of that fact--they'll make him VP and that willl keep the religious in the fold.
posted by amberglow at 1:03 PM on December 23, 2007
And by their own actions and policies, they've actually reduced the number of Americans who are getting richer and reduced upward mobility -- and made a tragic mess of national security and international affairs.
posted by amberglow at 1:10 PM on December 23, 2007
posted by amberglow at 1:10 PM on December 23, 2007
Primary GOP voters are loving him
But we don't know that--there haven't been any primaries yet. I very well may be singing a different tune in a few weeks, and running around my conservative locale trying to get people to understand what a hateful whackjob Huckabee is, but for now I trust none of the reporting on any of the primaries. I also think that the Republican party has lost most voters except for the base. As long as the Democrats nominate someone besides Hillary, they should win next November handily.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:15 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
But we don't know that--there haven't been any primaries yet. I very well may be singing a different tune in a few weeks, and running around my conservative locale trying to get people to understand what a hateful whackjob Huckabee is, but for now I trust none of the reporting on any of the primaries. I also think that the Republican party has lost most voters except for the base. As long as the Democrats nominate someone besides Hillary, they should win next November handily.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:15 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
One more thing--Huckabee is knowingly full of shit even in these very tepid attacks on the GOP Establisment--he's still running to represent the GOP, and not as an independent. If he really was troubled/angry by the way they treat him and treat his crowd, he'd be leading them in a 3rd-party run.
posted by amberglow at 1:19 PM on December 23, 2007
posted by amberglow at 1:19 PM on December 23, 2007
Also, stories like this may yet completely change the conversation. November is a long way off.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:19 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by LooseFilter at 1:19 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Huckabee is knowingly full of shit
No doubt, laughably so! A dangerous clown, but self-evidently a clown.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:20 PM on December 23, 2007
No doubt, laughably so! A dangerous clown, but self-evidently a clown.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:20 PM on December 23, 2007
Huckabee is very cleverly feeding them the "persecuted Christian" line that Rove used so skillfully--and that they eat up each election--but instead of painting Democrats as the gay godless heathens, he's pointing at a faceless DC establishment.
posted by amberglow at 1:23 PM on December 23, 2007
posted by amberglow at 1:23 PM on December 23, 2007
Also, stories like this may yet completely change the conversation. November is a long way off.
Yeah, but the primaries aren't, unfortunately.
I'm astounded that the religious angle gets played and replayed and fucking replayed, and a candidate trying to speak to the serious issues of labor, and health care, and the war, and the grip corporations have on our country can't get any traction.
Speak about how God talks to you, and people listen. Speak about how our system has become dangerously tilted toward the rich and authoritarian, and people make fun of your haircut. Jesus could probably relate.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:45 PM on December 23, 2007 [3 favorites]
Yeah, but the primaries aren't, unfortunately.
I'm astounded that the religious angle gets played and replayed and fucking replayed, and a candidate trying to speak to the serious issues of labor, and health care, and the war, and the grip corporations have on our country can't get any traction.
Speak about how God talks to you, and people listen. Speak about how our system has become dangerously tilted toward the rich and authoritarian, and people make fun of your haircut. Jesus could probably relate.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:45 PM on December 23, 2007 [3 favorites]
Mitt Romney's pursuit of tyrannical power, literally: The candidate's answers to key questions of executive power are beyond disturbing
posted by homunculus at 2:05 PM on December 23, 2007
posted by homunculus at 2:05 PM on December 23, 2007
Very related, and it also shows just what a game this all is:
Digby: Dogwhistling Into Hell--...four of the original GOP candidates (five if you count Alan Keyes) don't believe in evolution. But really, we shouldn't be surprised by this. After all, with few exceptions, the alleged intellectuals of the GOP spin like tops when asked about it. ...
posted by amberglow at 2:27 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Digby: Dogwhistling Into Hell--...four of the original GOP candidates (five if you count Alan Keyes) don't believe in evolution. But really, we shouldn't be surprised by this. After all, with few exceptions, the alleged intellectuals of the GOP spin like tops when asked about it. ...
posted by amberglow at 2:27 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
The real problem, strategically speaking, for the GOP, is, who do they get to replace him, and how do they sell that replacement to the base?
a. Bloomberg?
b. Beats me.
posted by SteveInMaine at 3:45 AM on December 24, 2007
a. Bloomberg?
b. Beats me.
posted by SteveInMaine at 3:45 AM on December 24, 2007
Romney Strategy in Peril With Huckabee's Ascent
"A year ago, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney gathered his campaign team for the first time at his suburban Boston home. There were PowerPoint presentations, and Ann Romney made sandwiches. 'It was like the first day of school,' said one senior-level participant.posted by ericb at 11:20 AM on December 24, 2007
It was then that Romney put in motion his strategy to become president: Win Iowa and New Hampshire by wooing fiscal and social conservatives, and use that momentum to overwhelm the competition in the primaries that followed. But with less than two weeks before Iowans vote, that strategy is in danger of unraveling because former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has seized the conservative mantle and has emerged as the front-runner. His sudden rise in the past month -- sparked by passionate support from the same Christian conservatives Romney has been unable to win over -- has raised questions about Romney's strategy."
The real problem, strategically speaking, for the GOP, is, who do they get to replace him, and how do they sell that replacement to the base?
a. Bloomberg?
b. Beats me.
c. Cheney steps down "for his health" and installs Rudy or someone not even running, and the entire administration goes into campaign mode to sell that person.
d. Bush/Cheney just don't leave at all (imagine whatever horror they use or create as an excuse, and know for sure the media will encourage it, tragically)
e. At the GOP Convention, they just twist arms to change state delegate counts (which is legal), and then cheat and do what they did in 00 and 04--with vote counts and records and friendly GOP Secretaries of State--taking the entire election to the Supreme Court again if needed.
f. Just cancel and/or postpone the election entirely (like d, but they'd have to time whatever "attack" much much closer to election day, regardless of who the candidate is.)
posted by amberglow at 2:52 PM on December 24, 2007
a. Bloomberg?
b. Beats me.
c. Cheney steps down "for his health" and installs Rudy or someone not even running, and the entire administration goes into campaign mode to sell that person.
d. Bush/Cheney just don't leave at all (imagine whatever horror they use or create as an excuse, and know for sure the media will encourage it, tragically)
e. At the GOP Convention, they just twist arms to change state delegate counts (which is legal), and then cheat and do what they did in 00 and 04--with vote counts and records and friendly GOP Secretaries of State--taking the entire election to the Supreme Court again if needed.
f. Just cancel and/or postpone the election entirely (like d, but they'd have to time whatever "attack" much much closer to election day, regardless of who the candidate is.)
posted by amberglow at 2:52 PM on December 24, 2007
President Huckabee Gives His State of the Union Address
posted by homunculus at 7:34 PM on December 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 7:34 PM on December 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
Huckabee not insane enough for Ann Coulter
posted by homunculus at 7:34 PM on December 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 7:34 PM on December 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
« Older I want a pony, I want a pony ... | The Weird World of Backstreet Boys fans (pre USA... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by never used baby shoes at 10:43 AM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]