0
0

Will the Republicans please now drop their theocratic crusade?


 invite response                
2012 Nov 6, 5:50pm   22,211 views  95 comments

by curious2   ➕follow (2)   💰tip   ignore  

Election results show President Obama got a majority of the popular vote again, in addition to winning the electoral college 300 vs 200. That happened even with an approval rating below 50%, and ObamaCare polling at -10%. Granted, President Obama is an extraordinary campaigner, but the larger issue is that many Americans felt they had no real choice: Republicans devolved into an apocalyptic cult offering only catastrophic Romnesia.

To borrow Bill Clinton's phrase, America built a bridge to the 21st century, and we are not going back. Republicans' bronze-age pact with Pat Robertson is no longer a "winning" formula, if it ever was. Contrary to freak80's delusional and deeply disturbed fears, supporters of same-sex marriage appear to have won a majority in all four states where the issue was on the ballot. That is consistent with polls showing majority support nationally since 2010. In other words, divide-and-misrule holy warrior crusades seem no longer to be a viable electoral strategy.

The issue is, now, will the Republicans even try to convert from a faith-based apocalyptic cult to an evidence-based political party with coherent governing principles? Or, will they blame Satan and persist on their current course?

To remind any Republican readers of American history, the first Republican President (Lincoln) signed the Emancipation Proclamation, championed the 13th Amendment, and rejected proposals to put "In God we Trust" on the currency. (Possibly the pre-eminent lawyer of his generation, Lincoln believed it would raise an impermissible establishment of religion. He also worried about fiat money, but that's another story.) Alas Lincoln's true legacy seems long forgotten now, at least among the party he helped create.

I ask this question because I believe that America needs at least two viable political parties, preferably more. Instead, we have two rival patronage networks, one of which is an apocalyptic cult. Can we please move on to a time when we can have a real choice in elections?

#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 95       Last »     Search these comments

1   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2012 Nov 6, 9:30pm  

You can pull their crusade from their dead fingers, which will be warmed by the glow of Christ.

IMO, the Fox / radio conservative news machine has enabled the republican party to get more and more off track and partisan. The democrats have been claiming the center, and no one on the right has noticed, b/c they have lost track of where the center is.

2   Bigsby   2012 Nov 6, 9:48pm  

Melmakian says

We consider last night to be the suicide of the nation. Since it is already dead, why bother delaying the inevitable?

We?

3   Bellingham Bill   2012 Nov 6, 10:00pm  

Birchers, basically.

And, yeah, people not comfortable with the 20th century let alone the 21st just got whacked with reality last night.

Gay people have rights to be happy regardless of what "Judeo Christian" dogmas have "taught" us.

Women have a right -- of privacy -- to control their health.

The 19th century model of massively rich few, zero ecological protections, and huddled millions of bankrupt and penniless workers is not something we can return to.

We can't run a $6.5T government on a $5T tax base. If we can't cut spending -- and we can't, since nobody wants to cut defense ($800B+ per year) and reforms in health sector spending won't come fast enough to offset the millions of baby boomers needing more care each year -- we need to raise taxes.

A lot -- back to Clinton rates is just a start.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGSDODNS

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NETEXP

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDEFX

Next two years aren't going to be a picnic. Republicans still hold a blocking position in the House, of course, and Bircher-level conservatives still control the Republican party.

4   david1   2012 Nov 6, 10:06pm  

What I am hearing from Conservative outlets (Krauthammer, O'Reilly, Castellanos) is only a doubling down of more conservatism.

They are criticizing Romney for being a "New England moderate." They are talking about how good of a campaign that Obama ran and how poorly Romney ran.

As Carville (and others) were telling them they need to come to the center like the Democrats did under Clinton, they disagreed.

The are laying their hope on "new" Conservatives like Christie, Rubio, Paul Ryan, & Jindal. They even talked about how the new Senator from Texas was a budding star in the party.

Moderates have no voice in the party currently. Until they do, Republicans will never win another Presidency.

5   Bigsby   2012 Nov 6, 10:07pm  

Bellingham Bill says

Birchers, basically.

Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues

6   Tenpoundbass   2012 Nov 6, 10:19pm  

I listened to NPR spouting off how the Republicans are all Old White people.
Like an evenly divided split line down this country are 50% White Old people.

I think the Liberals don't want to admit, or people to realize. The republican vote are all of the people that have to pay for the Liberals Bullshit.

In a way, it's kinda good having a Liberal base that are shiftless lazy loafers that would rather have Uncle Bronco Bama give them a dollah and a square, than go out and work.

That just means less pressure and competition for those of us that know what it's like to bust our Asses for a living. We get to have a house, go to college, have a car, raise our kids with a better standard of living.
And you don't get SQUAT.

Well the majority of Liberal voters don't anyway. But for the elitists that group, pigeonhole and cajole people into a demographic, then championing doing something about their plight. While lobbying and voting to actually improve conditions in their own neighborhoods, like better infrastructure, and schools, while giving their poor constituents more police and metal detectors at the schools.

People deserve the fool they elect.

7   Bigsby   2012 Nov 6, 10:23pm  

CaptainShuddup says

I listened to NPR spouting off how the Republicans are all Old White people.
Like an evenly divided split line down this country are 50% White Old people.

I think the Liberals don't want to admit, or people to realize. The republican vote are all of the people that have to pay for the Liberals Bullshit.

Of course they're not ALL old white people, but when you look at the break down of how people voted...

8   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2012 Nov 6, 10:29pm  

Does anyone have a link to election results by income, sot that we can put an end to the line of bull that CS is selling?

9   lostand confused   2012 Nov 6, 10:34pm  

Ain't gonna happen. Some people probably believe this is true.

11   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2012 Nov 6, 11:49pm  

The people concerned with social legislation coming out of the federal government have unfounded concerns.

If you failed to notice, almost all the pat.net supporters of Romney are libertarian leaning Republicans. That is, they probably are even more socially liberal than even the staunchest Obama supporters here. That's certainly true of me.

Yet somehow, we have no problem voting for a socially conservative religious man. How can this be?

It's because most social issues cannot be legislated at the federal level. Most often, they are state and local issues(such as "liberal" LA County's proposition requiring condom use on porn shoots).

IOW, the social issues stuff as uttered by presidential candidates is a complete red herring designed to induce emotional voters to the polls.

12   edvard2   2012 Nov 7, 12:36am  

CaptainShuddup says

I think the Liberals don't want to admit, or people to realize. The republican vote are all of the people that have to pay for the Liberals Bullshit.

That's not what that report was about. The report was basically summing up what the electoral vote clearly shows: The demographics of the country have changed. The GOP can't count on their base to win elections anymore. david1 says

They are criticizing Romney for being a "New England moderate." They are talking about how good of a campaign that Obama ran and how poorly Romney ran.

I simply find this amazing. Somehow they don't get it: The answer is not to become increasingly conservative because the only people who vote for those type of candidates are the ones who vote Republican no matter what- the base. As mentioned above the Republican base is no longer the majority. But that's fine by me. They want to find even more conservative candidates? Fine. They'll lose again.

13   Dan8267   2012 Nov 7, 1:03am  

curious2 says

Will the Republicans please now drop their theocratic crusade?

The Republican Party isn't worth saving. It's been taken over by religious retards and the evilest villains in capitalism. Why would you want to save either of those groups?

The best thing that could happen to America is for the Republican Party to flat out die taking the political coalition of dumb asses with them.

Then the Democratic Party can fragment into several smaller parties and we can finally be done with the stupid two-party system that has plagued our country for the past 100 years.

14   curious2   2012 Nov 7, 1:55am  

YesYNot says

Does anyone have a link to election results by income

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

15   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2012 Nov 7, 2:03am  

curious2 says

YesYNot says

Does anyone have a link to election results by income

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

I stand corrected. Higher income voters seem to go for Romney. I wonder if it would look different with more refined income brackets. Income seems to be almost as good of an indicator as religion.

On topic, when you remove religion (the none category of religion), Obama gets 70% of the votes. So, maybe religion is helping the republicans avoid an even bigger thumping.

16   curious2   2012 Nov 7, 2:19am  

dodgerfanjohn says

The people concerned with social legislation coming out of the federal government have unfounded concerns...because most social issues cannot be legislated at the federal level...IOW, the social issues stuff as uttered by presidential candidates is a complete red herring designed to induce emotional voters to the polls.

Republicans campaigned on amending the Constitution of the United States to require women who are raped, and become pregnant as a result, to carry the pregnancy to term because it is "God's plan." They campaigned on amending the Constitution of the United States to ban same-sex couples from getting married, because the party faithful declare America a "Christian country" and define Christianity like the Taliban defines Islam. They lost this time, but in the past they used the federal government to inflict serious harm, some of which remains ongoing. Remember McCarthyism? Don't Ask Don't Tell? I hesitate to invoke the memory of a much more tragic history, but Pastor Niemöller's famous words are always worth remembering:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

The Republicans waged a seriously frightening campaign, provoking a visceral electoral rejection. Looking at the economic numbers and public opinion of specific policies, Republicans might have won with a candidate like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. Instead they are behaving like the Branch Davidians at Waco.

17   curious2   2012 Nov 7, 2:22am  

YesYNot says

maybe religion is helping the republicans avoid an even bigger thumping.

It's "helping" them the same way it "helped" Jonestown buy Kool-Aid. Like most "magical thinking" strategies, it works until it fails, which is to say it doesn't really work and eventually reality re-asserts itself.

18   david1   2012 Nov 7, 2:51am  

YesYNot says

I stand corrected. Higher income voters seem to go for Romney. I wonder if it would look different with more refined income brackets. Income seems to be almost as good of an indicator as religion.

While not income per se, if you look at the vote by education, you get a clearer picture of what you are expecting. Pretty even between high school, some college, and college graduate.

Then when you look at post-graduate....things skew towards Obama.

Given that post-graduates make more than bachelors on the average, one can infer that within that "over 100k" income demographic, those with higher incomes derided from production (and needing that education) probably leaned Obama.

19   david1   2012 Nov 7, 2:52am  

And by the way, to answer the OP -

No, I see a doubling down.

20   curious2   2012 Nov 7, 3:09am  

david1 says

if you look at the vote by education

Interesting - I hadn't noticed it before, but the only education level where Obama lost was bachelor's degrees, 47%-51%. That's also the demographic that opposed ObamaCare by the widest margin, 60%-40%.

I wonder if the connection might relate to age, which was a very clear predictor. Obama won among voters under 40, and lost among voters over 40. The youngest voters haven't had time to get a BA/BS yet. Older college graduates got their degrees at a time when college was cheap or even free, and a bachelor's degree was plenty for a successful career. Since then, probably a larger share of college graduates have gone on to graduate degrees, especially during the recent recession, and may be more likely to be in debt. So, the bachelor's degree cohort may skew older, and possibly with more savings. Fed ZIRP & QE punish savers, but might possibly reward debtors, so that might explain the split too.

21   maxweber21   2012 Nov 7, 3:48am  

Actually, Romney lost because he represents the ultra-wealthy. Not because of a religous/atheistic battle.
No doubt repub's will run that horse again in 4 years. Against Hillary? Who knows. As economy will continue to tick downward, he still will not be able to represent the average American. So, will lose again. Really has very little to do with religion other than a lot of people voted him based on abortion since Mass makes it difficult to have an abortion after 24 mo.s (time at which majority born survive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability). Clearly that one issue was not enought to win - especially since its governed by the states at this time anyways.
Republican party will have challenges going forward. Democratic party just as many. As government comes closer and closer to point of no return on borrowing, the inflation will accelerate. Expect to see massive emigration of young adults as with Ireland et al. Time is ripe for a third party to take the scene. Not one who takes positions on the issues such as Libs and Constitution et al; but one that caters to dreams of the people like Demos and Repubs.

22   curious2   2012 Nov 7, 3:56am  

maxweber21 says

Mass makes it difficult to have an abortion after 24 mo.s

After 24 months, most babies have not only been born but also are learning to walk. So yes, I think aborting them would be difficult. They keep toddling away.

maxweber21 says

Romney lost because he represents the ultra-wealthy. Not because of a religous/atheistic battle.

Romnesia's current positions on social issues also lost everywhere they were on the ballot. It isn't a battle between religion and atheism per se, it's more about whether to have faith-based government or evidence-based government. Remember the days when people were tried for witchcraft, and innocence or guilt was determined by throwing them into a pool of water? (If they floated, it meant the water had rejected them, and so they must be guilty.) Romnesia's 47% comment hurt his chances too, but Republican social positions also cost them, and the same positions would cost them even more in 2016.

23   maxweber21   2012 Nov 7, 3:58am  

BTW, its worth reminding everyone that Bush was throwing free money to the big companies. I think Obama is credited with the free money to buy a house or trade in a clunker. So, in the world of voting favors from the Treasury, at least the Dem's consider the voters a little. I wonder how much more free education has been doled out too. Clearly the populous is voting for the favors to themselves. ultra-rich to repubs. lower-middle and middle to Demos. And professionals left with no representation. But they always work hard and take care of themselves anyways so nothing new.

24   Dan8267   2012 Nov 7, 4:02am  

maxweber21 says

makes it difficult to have an abortion after 24 mo.s (time at which majority born survive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability).

If it's on Wikipedia, it has to be true!

25   rooemoore   2012 Nov 7, 4:05am  

CaptainShuddup says

I think the Liberals don't want to admit, or people to realize. The republican vote are all of the people that have to pay for the Liberals Bullshit.

You mean the GREEDY people that don't want to pay to keep this country great.

Under Romney's tax plan I would have saved almost 40k a year in taxes (according to my CPA and what we know of Romney's plan) So I clearly voted against my own self-interest.

I have a small business with about 50 employees. I should be the poster child for the Republican's argument to lower taxes. But I understand that my business will be pretty much fucked if the middle class continues to shrink. And it is pretty clear to me that pure greed dressed up as "supply side economics" is the biggest reason - there are others - that our middle class has shrunk.

The trick, as I see it, is not to take away workers rights and lower their pay here in the US so we can stay competitive. It is to get international workers to start organizing so that perhaps someday we can have 50's and 60's style US capitalism all over the world. Then everyone wins.

It's a pipe dream, I know, so I will leave you with one final thought about this election.

26   curious2   2012 Nov 8, 4:16am  

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

cheap Chinese AKs in bulk....

Don't those things overheat and jam? When cannibal anarchy takes over the North American continent, the forewarned PatNetters will have an Uzi for each arm to bring home dinner for the entire PatNet floating island.

MMM, Realtor®.

27   Vicente   2012 Nov 8, 5:09am  

curious2 says

forewarned PatNetters will have an Uzi for each arm to bring home dinner for the entire PatNet floating island.

I thought PatNetters would go for Ingram Mac-10:

"Daddy would have gotten us Uzis!"

28   AverageBear   2012 Nov 8, 5:31am  

Curious2, What liberals tend to do is 'project' the average republican as God-fearing and Pro Life which is not accurate. Do they exist in the GOP? Definitely. Are they the majority? (as in, counting all independents/Republicans/libertarian/anyone who votes for the GOP?) Definitely not. I don't have #'s to back up or links to provide (as I'm at work). I do think liberal media tends to project Tea Party supporters as Pro-Life and God-Christ cheerleaders, and that would be inaccurate as well. I went to the Tea Party rally in Boston awhile ago, and didn't get the 'Religious Vibe' at all. (I happened to run into a VERY libreal friend of mine. I asked if he saw any racism that day. He said no, but could 'feel it'. .....I do think the GOP should marginalize or downplay the religious of our ranks? I think Tea Party should be advertised as folks who spend within their means, don't have debt actually expect the gov't to do the same.
As heads of households to do these things (no debt/live within our means), we (ie, GOP/Dem/anyone) are seen as smart and sensible. But when we expect our elected gov't officials to have these same traits that we live by, and admire, we (GOP) are called extreme? Liberal media perpetuates this fallacy, and you eat it up like an ice-cream sundae....One should always remember that the Tea Party is not about religion, but about fiscal sanity.... And speaking of fiscal sanity, I leave you w/ one question. Can you name me a fiscally conservative Democrat Congressman or governor? I'm hoping to find one, and if so would like to read up on him/her....

29   AverageBear   2012 Nov 8, 5:39am  

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Koch Brothers are probably buying cheap Chinese AKs in bulk to deliver to teabaggers and militias to start skirmishing in the provinces and provoke full-bore civil war.
There's nothing left for the middle class to do. They might as well provide entertainment for their overlords.

--------------------------
For every Koch Bro, there's a Soros. For every Limbaugh, there's a Chris Matthews...and on and on and on....What a boring topic of conversation. Next....
Why do liberals fall back on the fallacy of Tea Party folks 'clinging to guns and religion'? It's getting tedious to say the least. The majority of us who are fiscally conservative don't own a gun, and most likely are Pro-Choice. You eat up the liberal media shite sandwich, as if it were a sundae. Give it a rest. Fiscally conservative GOPers and Independents are more 'normal' than you think, or will admit. I'd vote for fiscally conservative Democrat, but I haven't found one in quite some time....

30   curious2   2012 Nov 8, 5:41am  

AverageBear says

Can you name me a fiscally conservative Democrat Congressman or governor?

http://bluedogdems.ngpvanhost.com/content/blue-dog-membership-1

Can you name a fiscally responsible Republican President? The last times we had a balanced budget were during the Clinton administration. The Reagan deficits were enormous despite the tax increases that he signed, and then each Bush broke all deficit records. (Bush the elder raised both taxes and deficits, Bush the Younger "cut" taxes while increasing spending, shifting the cost onto future taxpayers.) BTW, since your avatar says Boston, how's that RomneyCare working out for you?

If Republicans had nominated a secular candidate like Ron Paul, who actually outpolled Barack Obama nationally, or former Governor Gary Johnson, we could have had a real debate about the role of government and fiscal responsibility. Former Governor Bill Weld would have been a fine candidate, or Mayor Bloomberg if he had been encouraged. Instead Republicans chose multiple-choice Romnesia, and their runner-up was "frothy" Santorum.

31   tdr   2012 Nov 8, 5:47am  

Typical Liberals. Nasty when they lose, even nastier when they win. This is why there is so much contempt.

To quote Democrat Hillary Clinton:

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Well?

32   curious2   2012 Nov 8, 5:50am  

tdr says

Well?

What are you even talking about?

33   AverageBear   2012 Nov 8, 5:51am  

curious2 says

Can you name a fiscally responsible Republican President?

--------------------------
I asked you first. Can you name me any current Democrat who is fiscally conservative. For the record, I wasn't happy voting for W, as he wasn't conservative. (SCHIP, no child left behind, etc). But the alternative to me, was alot worse...I'll play the 'history game' with you another day, but please stick to the question I posed. I'm not trying to be a dick; i'm honestly interested in knowing if a fiscally conservative democrat currently exists, who at the same time, won't get chastizes by the DNC. I think Liebermann comes to mind, but he got thrown under the bus by the DNC. People of CT 'get it'.... I'd vote for him, and anyone like him. Can you give me the name of someone like Lieberman? Thanks.

34   curious2   2012 Nov 8, 5:52am  

AverageBear says

I asked you first.

And I replied with a list. You still haven't named any.

35   Bellingham Bill   2012 Nov 8, 5:52am  

Hey man don't talk down Bush Sr. : ) He and his team bit the bullet going with the Dem's major tax rise, totally breaking his "Read My Lips. . ." campaign promise.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cCu

When the 1990 recession hit, revenues tanked, but they were trying:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cCv

red is outlays, green is revenue

36   Bellingham Bill   2012 Nov 8, 5:55am  

AverageBear says

Can you name me any current Democrat who is fiscally conservative

All of 'em who want to raise taxes.

None of them are conservative enough, but the bottom line is that taxes have to double in this country.

http://patrick.net/?p=1218608&c=895053#comment-895053

for the math behind that.

Now, if you'd like to cut spending to replace these tax increases, I'm all for that, too. Name your cuts!

Being a "fiscal conservative" without actually making the policy to get you to a balanced budget is just living on Conservative Bullshit Mountain.

37   curious2   2012 Nov 8, 6:11am  

Vicente says

I thought PatNetters would go for Ingram Mac-10:

"Daddy would have gotten us Uzis!"

Great reference to Night of the Comet :)

How about some of each? That way, PatNetters will have something to argue about, while carrying compatible ammunition in case of real(tor) Zombie attacks.

38   mell   2012 Nov 8, 6:23am  

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

The GOP is going to go into Full-Bore Crazee from here on out:

Here is the 2016 platform:

RAPE is a SACRAMENT!

-RNC will propose a Rape Amendment that will repeal all rape laws in the US.

The 13th and 14th Amendments are unconstitutional.

-RNC will propose returning the progeny of runaway slaves to their rightful owners - or to those who can prove to a court or sheriff they will make good use of their labor.

JESUS is Lord and God.

-Fire trucks will be dispatched with ministers to mass baptize everyone encountered outside in a municipality.

SUFFRAGE is SATANIC:

-Women's eligibility to vote will be outlawed in the name of God.

Epic!

Sad that the GOP in mostly unvotable which is sad because there is a real niche for a fiscally conservative and socially liberal party that would put an end to the fiscal destruction of the nation being orchestrated since bush and continued unabated by Obummer.

39   Bellingham Bill   2012 Nov 8, 7:10am  

mell says

continued unabated by Obummer.

When you're handed a bag of flaming dog poo all you can really do is just put out the fire.

Taxes need to double from here. Nobody who tries to do that will be reelected.

We're going to be living in "interesting times" this decade.

40   Vicente   2012 Nov 8, 7:14am  

AverageBear says

What liberals tend to do is 'project' the average republican as God-fearing and Pro Life which is not accurate. Do they exist in the GOP? Definitely. Are they the majority? (as in, counting all independents/Republicans/libertarian/anyone who votes for the GOP?) Definitely not.

If you think God-Fearing Pro-Life are NOT the majority, it's curious that the Party Platform clearly was written for them:

- We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

- We affirm every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious objects or symbols, or becoming subject to government-imposed hiring practices.

I went back and looked at the GOP 1980 platform, they felt no need to include religious language. Abortion was there but at least the language recognized that there was internal division. There's no question that the current GOP does not believe in the Big Tent only in useful fools, which is among the reasons I left.

Comments 1 - 40 of 95       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions