Young Republicans are Comedy Gold

[Ender]

Going back on topic here, this years CPAC has been hilariously psychotic

Things that won't rise again: Taxes

I just wondered that if our founders thought taxation without representation was bad, what would they think of representation WITH taxation?

Things that will rise again: The South

Appearing at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., told attendees that they face a tough battle over the next few years, as they're facing off against President Obama, "the world's best salesman of socialism."
Of course, in a fight this tough, you have to consider drastic measures. So, DeMint said, it's possible that conservatives will have to "take to the streets to stop America’s slide into socialism."
As CNN notes, DeMint isn't the only prominent politician who's been talking about socialism at CPAC. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee did the same thing on Thursday, saying that "the Union of American Socialist Republics is being born" and that "Lenin and Stalin would love" the government's ongoing bailouts of the banking industry. (Don't forget notorious Marxist Alan Greenspan.)

Dixieland 2.0 woot woot!

But this Rush-Limbaugh/Fox-News/nationalistic movement isn't driven by anything noble or principled or even really anything political. If it were, they would have been extra angry and threatening and rebellious during the Bush years instead of complicit and meek and supportive to the point of cult-like adoration. Instead, they're just basically Republican dead-enders (at least what remains of the regional/extremist GOP), grounded in tribal allegiances that are fueled by their cultural, ethnic and religious identities and by perceived threats to past prerogatives -- now spiced with legitimate economic anxiety and an African-American President who, they were continuously warned for the last two years, is a Marxist, Terrorist-sympathizing black nationalist radical who wants to re-distribute their hard-earned money to welfare queens and illegal immigrants (and is now doing exactly that).
That's the context for this Glenn Beck "War Games" show on Fox News this week -- one promoted, with some mild and obligatory caveats, by Michelle Malkin's Hot Air. In the segment below, he convened a panel that includes former CIA officer Michael Scheuer and Ret. U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tim Strong. They discuss a coming "civil war" led by American "Bubba" militias -- Beck says he "believes we're on this road" -- and they contemplate whether the U.S. military would follow the President's orders to subdue civil unrest or would instead join with "the people" in defense of their Constitutional rights against the Government (they agree that the U.S. military would be with "the people")

[Axis Kast]

Oh dear.

On what do you base your collective accusation of tactless honesty at all users of this forum?

On the fact that some of the behavior displayed here is routinely beyond the pale.

There are those who insist that the Internet is a free-fire zone where the normal rules of engagement don’t apply. That’s true only to a point. Why is it that some people never have apoplectic meltdowns, but others do? Why is it that when people post screed on plenty of other forums, they are derided, but here, it is a cultural prerogative. Heck, when we discuss community standards, you have folks pouring from the woodwork to insist that insulting “stupid people” is their God-given right. Behavior on the Internet may not correlate strongly with statements made in real life, but I am confident that it speaks to somebody’s character, personality, and opinions about what is, or is not, appropriate. The structure of the Internet can’t explain why some of us are more or less reserved even in an anonymous setting – that has to do with the ability to control oneself.

Some might, but they would most probably not make it to a second term. Some of us might develop a more restrained tongue while still holding much the same views. I know I would, though the press would probably have a field day with something I said carelessly that could be taken out of context to make it look worse than it was in context.

What’s the difference between a restrained tongue and completely different policies? At some point, somebody is going to have to stand up for exactly what they believe in, or become a sell-out. And when that time comes, my money is that people here would match ridiculous insult for ridiculous insult even while also sometimes making cogent retorts to people who really deserved a good raking over the rhetorical coals.

Will it really be necessary to plough back over the last eight, ten, twenty-five or even thirty-five years to find more than sufficient examples of the mindsets of these people? Republican office-holders who kept ties to the neoconfederate Council of Conservative Citizens (Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Kirk Fordice)? South Carolina legislators who assert the right to fly the Stars & Bars over the state capitol building in Charleston? Lee Atwater's and Karl Rove's not-so-subtle appeals to racism in Southern primary campaigns and even one general election? The Nixonian "Southern Strategy"? Jesse Helms?

That door swings both ways. A state senator insisting that mandatory AIDS testing will encourage promiscuity, implying the sins of the mother ought to become the pains of the child? Despicable. But how about an NPR commentator, Nina Totenberg’s 1995 comment that the grandchildren of Senator Jesse Helms deserved AIDS as “retributive justice” for his politics? A mayor sending racist e-mails? Meet Chuck Turner, a Boston councilman who compared Condoleezza Rice to a house negro. Newsday – far more influential, because of its reporting credentials, than the Post, which is considered a hack rag despite wide circulation – published an editorial in which the RNC was likened to Nazi marches.

First, you're lying. Radio hosts like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. are employed because they are popular. Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly sell a shitload of books because they are popular. These aren't people on the fringe. If your hypothesis were correct, one should be able to sell just as many books and draw just as many viewers by being just as outrageous in support of socialism. So where are the radical socialist talk-radio jocks and runaway best-seller authors and TV show hosts?

They’re popular because they appeal to people’s desire to hear what is shocking. We see their faces, again and again, on television because they successfully generate high levels of controversy. Part of their success is that they’ve mobilized critics who keep the spotlight leveled carefully in their direction.

Most conservatives, again, are attracted to this kind of radio because of its utility as a heuristic device. They know that if they wanted to really debate the issues, they’d need more than that – but when you get in a zinger with somebody at work or what have you, and there’s only time for a short back-and-forth, it’s easy to borrow from somebody who makes their living pushing simple metaphors and strawmen.

Michael Moore successfully sells movies that don’t tell nearly the whole truth – in part because everyone needs to see it, whether they believe him or not. Noam Chomsky has millions of devoted readers, but also sells plenty of books to critics and students that want to tear him apart.

Second, you're pretending that I could only produce one example of a Republican senator who said something ridiculous; do you really want to challenge people to come up with more examples? Republicans have made an absolutely incredible litany of statements which make one question their sanity. Not errors, but deliberate statements of intent and value. Avowed creationists are considered rising stars in the party. Men stand up in public and declare that they can diagnose brain conditions via videotape. The fucking president himself declares that he takes guidance from a higher power.

Thank you for bringing the argument back around to its main point. Sanity. It’s just been argued that politics is not about sanity, but about what sells, and that short quips are as important because they sell a package of ideas as because they are true. One doesn’t need God, or close-minded bigotry, to be stupid. Those who believe fervently in Creationism, who reject evolution, who insist that the Bible is a legitimate document on Right Living from the Creator, are irrational. Great. We agreed on that point long ago. But what we're still disputing is whether that's important or not. Do Republicans have a lot of unthinking people under their banner? You bet. Too bad that I can't blindly turn to the other candidate with the confident that they, on the other hand, will be more right.

Susan Rice, now U.N. ambassador, was speaking with a straight face when she called for 40,000 troops in Darfur. Samantha Power, on the NSC, is, in part, a shock journalist who hopes to play on the heartstrings of people who don’t have all the facts. It doesn’t take a creationist, or a “meanie,” to make stupid policy. It takes somebody who doesn’t have specific context, or speaks from the cuff because an idea – “thousands of American troops” – just sounds so enthralling. (Does that notion – of the invincibility and omnicompetence of the American fighting man – sound familiar, by the way?)

I can understand thinking badly of men who announce themselves capable of passing medical judgment from great remove. I do as well. But I can’t understand deriding creationists, who often speak out of what might as well be called brainwashing, or clobbering George Bush because he feels he receives inspiration and guidance from the Almighty. That last part may be the essential thing to zero in on. It doesn’t surprise me that somebody – anybody – would claim to be inspired by God. Human beings often say completely irrational things when it comes to spirituality. How are, “I think God wanted this to happen!” or, “That was God, watching out for me!” or, “That dream I had last night really makes me think this happened for a reason…” any different?

Just to recap my main points:

1. It's important to examine the yawning divergence between liberals' perceptions of eight years of untrammeled Republican progress in social, economic, and foreign policy infiltration with the widespread conservative belief that the George Bush years saw them "under siege" and ducking for cover, beset on all fronts by intolerance for their "traditional" points of view. So long as condescending dismissal -- "they're too stupid to grapple with" -- and outright bellicosity are the only reply they get, this will keep happening. If conservative politics is fear politics, why feed the beast?

2. Loud complaints about the inability of Republicans or conservatives to "get it right" are useless. Try debate. But when you do, come to the table with the understanding that a lot of these folks believe what they do for "deeper" reasons. A debate about gay marriage can better be approached as a debate about the provenance of the Bible.

[Patrick Degan]

Will it really be necessary to plough back over the last eight, ten, twenty-five or even thirty-five years to find more than sufficient examples of the mindsets of these people? Republican office-holders who kept ties to the neoconfederate Council of Conservative Citizens (Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Kirk Fordice)? South Carolina legislators who assert the right to fly the Stars & Bars over the state capitol building in Charleston? Lee Atwater's and Karl Rove's not-so-subtle appeals to racism in Southern primary campaigns and even one general election? The Nixonian "Southern Strategy"? Jesse Helms?

That door swings both ways. A state senator insisting that mandatory AIDS testing will encourage promiscuity, implying the sins of the mother ought to become the pains of the child? Despicable. But how about an NPR commentator, Nina Totenberg’s 1995 comment that the grandchildren of Senator Jesse Helms deserved AIDS as “retributive justice” for his politics? A mayor sending racist e-mails? Meet Chuck Turner, a Boston councilman who compared Condoleezza Rice to a house negro. Newsday – far more influential, because of its reporting credentials, than the Post, which is considered a hack rag despite wide circulation – published an editorial in which the RNC was likened to Nazi marches.

No, it does NOT swing both ways. At best, you can come up with isolated examples of liberal bad behaviour. You cannot, however, point to a consistent ideological bent of outright hostility and the conscious use of racism and religious intolerance in political strategy and policy which is de-rigeur for Republicans.

Oh, and BTW, this is Mr. Turner, the man who you pointed to as racist toward Condoleeza Rice for his "house negro" comment:



Sloppy research on your part if you wanted to use him as a countervailing example to Dean Grose.

Your "argument" begins to degenerate along predictable lines.

[Surlethe]

Certainly, the door does swing both ways, it's just much more likely to swing in the conservative direction than the liberal direction. That was the whole point of bringing up creationism earlier, wasn't it?

[Axis Kast]

No, it does NOT swing both ways. At best, you can come up with isolated examples of liberal bad behaviour. You cannot, however, point to a consistent ideological bent of outright hostility and the conscious use of racism and religious intolerance in political strategy and policy which is de-rigeur for Republicans.

I'm glad to respond to your arguments. Let's begin this next round, though, by remembering that the overarching question is whether the religious and philosophical orientation of conservatives is enough to excoriate many of them as ignorant and uncritical. We have agreed that it is. This leads to a second question: so what? With respect to some of their arguments and policy-making, this is relevant. In other cases, it has no ill effect. Nobody will convince me that Democrats have the answers if all they do is fulminate about the failings of Republican lawmakers and political talk show hosts.

Now. Ideological bents. Outright hostility to homosexuality in many quarters, yes. Conscious use of racism and religious intolerance? Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Politics is dirty business -- in some precincts, more than others. Karl Rove is a dirty politician, period, but not every Republican uses Karl Rove. I could point you to Democrats like Baron Hill who have large collections of dirty laundry when it comes to elections.

Sloppy research on your part if you wanted to use him as a countervailing example to Dean Grose.

In other words, it's okay to imply that somebody is a race traitor, as long as you're a member of that race? What gives Mr. Turner the right to say that about anyone? Is hate speech less about content and spirit than skin color? This wasn't somebody using a colloquial term in-context, or adopting a derisive phrase and infusing it with new meaning, however insular or exclusive. This was somebody saying, "Hey. You there! Race traitor!"

[Surlethe]

Now. Ideological bents. Outright hostility to homosexuality in many quarters, yes. Conscious use of racism and religious intolerance? Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Politics is dirty business -- in some precincts, more than others. Karl Rove is a dirty politician, period, but not every Republican uses Karl Rove. I could point you to Democrats like Baron Hill who have large collections of dirty laundry when it comes to elections.

Predilection is more important than examples. Can you find numbers on whether Republicans are more likely to play dirty than Democrats? (Or, in the wider scheme, whether conservatives are more likely to play dirty than liberals?) I think that's more germane to the debate than finding instances on both sides of dirty laundry; as they say, "the plural of anecdote is not data." In lieu of numbers, one could make an argument that posits Republican politicians are more likely to consciously use racism and, especially, religious intolerance because the Republican constituency has a sizeable racist component and an even larger religious component; therefore, Republicans are more inclined to "play dirty" in politics with those particular topics. This model, by the way, predicts that southern Democrats were the more likely to play such cards before the 1960s, although preceding the rise of evangelicalism changes the dynamic somewhat.

[Patrick Degan]

No, it does NOT swing both ways. At best, you can come up with isolated examples of liberal bad behaviour. You cannot, however, point to a consistent ideological bent of outright hostility and the conscious use of racism and religious intolerance in political strategy and policy which is de-rigeur for Republicans.

I'm glad to respond to your arguments. Let's begin this next round, though, by remembering that the overarching question is whether the religious and philosophical orientation of conservatives is enough to excoriate many of them as ignorant and uncritical. We have agreed that it is. This leads to a second question: so what? With respect to some of their arguments and policy-making, this is relevant. In other cases, it has no ill effect. Nobody will convince me that Democrats have the answers if all they do is fulminate about the failings of Republican lawmakers and political talk show hosts.

Except "fulminating about the failings of Republican lawmakers and political talk show hosts" is not all the Democrats do. By contrast, all Republicans show themselves capable of is consistently playing a politics of division and have been doing so for decades now.

Now. Ideological bents. Outright hostility to homosexuality in many quarters, yes. Conscious use of racism and religious intolerance? Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Politics is dirty business -- in some precincts, more than others. Karl Rove is a dirty politician, period, but not every Republican uses Karl Rove. I could point you to Democrats like Baron Hill who have large collections of dirty laundry when it comes to elections.

Nixonian Southern Strategy —the key to the RNC playbook in every national contest since 1968. That and their constantly pushing, not so subtly, the idea that the GOP is God's Own Party. You really have no argument here no matter how much you pretend you do.

Sloppy research on your part if you wanted to use him as a countervailing example to Dean Grose.

In other words, it's okay to imply that somebody is a race traitor, as long as you're a member of that race? What gives Mr. Turner the right to say that about anyone? Is hate speech less about content and spirit than skin color? This wasn't somebody using a colloquial term in-context, or adopting a derisive phrase and infusing it with new meaning, however insular or exclusive. This was somebody saying, "Hey. You there! Race traitor!"

You very sloppily called Turner a racist for using the "house negro" appelation against Rice and misapplied the term racism, which refers to the stereotyping of an entire group based solely on ethnicity or skin colour. Now you backpedal when you get caught having clearly demonstrated that you didn't know who you were talking about and still try to play the apples/oranges game.

[Darth Wong]

They’re popular because they appeal to people’s desire to hear what is shocking. We see their faces, again and again, on television because they successfully generate high levels of controversy. Part of their success is that they’ve mobilized critics who keep the spotlight leveled carefully in their direction.

Most conservatives, again, are attracted to this kind of radio because of its utility as a heuristic device. They know that if they wanted to really debate the issues, they’d need more than that – but when you get in a zinger with somebody at work or what have you, and there’s only time for a short back-and-forth, it’s easy to borrow from somebody who makes their living pushing simple metaphors and strawmen.

Michael Moore successfully sells movies that don’t tell nearly the whole truth – in part because everyone needs to see it, whether they believe him or not. Noam Chomsky has millions of devoted readers, but also sells plenty of books to critics and students that want to tear him apart.

Are you saying that Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky are as outrageous as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter? The worst you can say about Michael Moore is that he's a propagandist in documentarian's clothes. Rush Limbaugh is a racist who makes fun of disabled people and Ann Coulter is a borderline psychopath. And there's still no reason to believe that a lot of Rush's audience is composed of people who are outraged by him, as opposed to those who agree with him. Do you have some reason why you believe this to be the case?

Thank you for bringing the argument back around to its main point. Sanity. It’s just been argued that politics is not about sanity, but about what sells, and that short quips are as important because they sell a package of ideas as because they are true. One doesn’t need God, or close-minded bigotry, to be stupid. Those who believe fervently in Creationism, who reject evolution, who insist that the Bible is a legitimate document on Right Living from the Creator, are irrational. Great. We agreed on that point long ago. But what we're still disputing is whether that's important or not. Do Republicans have a lot of unthinking people under their banner? You bet. Too bad that I can't blindly turn to the other candidate with the confident that they, on the other hand, will be more right.

What kind of reasoning is this? When presented with a clear, irrefutable reason why you can generalize negatively about a group, you turn around and say that you can't guarantee that people outside this group are better 100% of the time? That's like saying that there are people who drive dangerously when sober (which is true), so I shouldn't lambast drunk drivers or suggest that sober drivers are generally more trustworthy.

Susan Rice, now U.N. ambassador, was speaking with a straight face when she called for 40,000 troops in Darfur. Samantha Power, on the NSC, is, in part, a shock journalist who hopes to play on the heartstrings of people who don’t have all the facts. It doesn’t take a creationist, or a “meanie,” to make stupid policy. It takes somebody who doesn’t have specific context, or speaks from the cuff because an idea – “thousands of American troops” – just sounds so enthralling. (Does that notion – of the invincibility and omnicompetence of the American fighting man – sound familiar, by the way?)

See above. You cling to this non sequitur where criticism of a group is invalidated if 100% of the people outside that group are not guaranteed to be better than 100% of the people inside the group. That is horrendously broken logic and you know it.

I can understand thinking badly of men who announce themselves capable of passing medical judgment from great remove. I do as well. But I can’t understand deriding creationists, who often speak out of what might as well be called brainwashing, or clobbering George Bush because he feels he receives inspiration and guidance from the Almighty. That last part may be the essential thing to zero in on. It doesn’t surprise me that somebody – anybody – would claim to be inspired by God. Human beings often say completely irrational things when it comes to spirituality. How are, “I think God wanted this to happen!” or, “That was God, watching out for me!” or, “That dream I had last night really makes me think this happened for a reason…” any different?

The fact that you disagree is well-established. It does not represent an actual "point" in this debate, and that's all you've stated in this paragraph. I do think that it's a serious problem when a national leader cites God as his motivation for national policy. Many countries have leaders who are religious, but do not say on TV that God tells them what to do. Do you understand why a lot of people are uncomfortable with that? Even some religious people? The fact is that most religious people know on some level that God does not literally tell you what to do. At most, your belief in him inspires you to think a certain way, but that's like saying "I rely on gut instinct". That's secular but it wouldn't inspire confidence in a national leader either. We want to believe they have a more sophisticated decision-making process.

Just to recap my main points:

1. It's important to examine the yawning divergence between liberals' perceptions of eight years of untrammeled Republican progress in social, economic, and foreign policy infiltration with the widespread conservative belief that the George Bush years saw them "under siege" and ducking for cover, beset on all fronts by intolerance for their "traditional" points of view. So long as condescending dismissal -- "they're too stupid to grapple with" -- and outright bellicosity are the only reply they get, this will keep happening. If conservative politics is fear politics, why feed the beast?

Tell me, did widespread agreement with and appeasement for their platform in 2002 and 2003 make them any less aggressive? Nope, not one iota. In fact, one could argue that it only bolstered their confidence. Self-censorship doesn't solve anything. If anything, some of our open contempt for their bullshit would have been really useful in American public discourse in 2002 and 2003. They certainly made no effort to hide their contempt for liberalism.

2. Loud complaints about the inability of Republicans or conservatives to "get it right" are useless. Try debate. But when you do, come to the table with the understanding that a lot of these folks believe what they do for "deeper" reasons. A debate about gay marriage can better be approached as a debate about the provenance of the Bible.

Since when did anyone say that he would not even try to debate issues with any conservative? We're debating with you, aren't we? That's a bullshit strawman you've constructed. What people have said is that when you try to debate, and the guy just ignores points and throws cookie-cutter axioms back at you, there's no point continuing because he is obviously not interested in a serious debate. I defy you to explain what's wrong with that conclusion.

[Axis Kast]

Except "fulminating about the failings of Republican lawmakers and political talk show hosts" is not all the Democrats do. By contrast, all Republicans show themselves capable of is consistently playing a politics of division and have been doing so for decades now.

It's what far too many of their critics do. And the purpose of my original response to this thread was encouraging a change of approach.

Nixonian Southern Strategy —the key to the RNC playbook in every national contest since 1968. That and their constantly pushing, not so subtly, the idea that the GOP is God's Own Party. You really have no argument here no matter how much you pretend you do.

Propagating the idea that God would want you to vote for the Republican Party is crass manipulation, and arguably debatable, even if we accept Him as a given. It is not, however, racist.

The politics of religion can, of course, be used to exclude, and often is. Nobody's denying that. Once again, I have been encouraging arguments that leave the ethics of that exclusion as a second-order question, since it will be impossible to appeal to morality without first putting Scripture's validity in question.

You very sloppily called Turner a racist for using the "house negro" appelation against Rice and misapplied the term racism, which refers to the stereotyping of an entire group based solely on ethnicity or skin colour. Now you backpedal when you get caught having clearly demonstrated that you didn't know who you were talking about and still try to play the apples/oranges game.

Please. You're playing semantics to avoid admitting that you made a dumb move, and you know it. Turner's insult "works" because of the implication that the Republican Party is exclusively the white man's party. That's a scurrilous, wrong-headed argument, and to claim that blacks have a necessary allegiance to any one end of the political spectrum is frankly outrageous. According to social preferences, the Republican Party is increasingly the party of religious Hispanics, for example. Certainly a minority that identifies with Republican principles or policies is not a "race traitor."

Are you saying that Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky are as outrageous as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter? The worst you can say about Michael Moore is that he's a propagandist in documentarian's clothes. Rush Limbaugh is a racist who makes fun of disabled people and Ann Coulter is a borderline psychopath. And there's still no reason to believe that a lot of Rush's audience is composed of people who are outraged by him, as opposed to those who agree with him. Do you have some reason why you believe this to be the case?

I happen to think that Chomsky was essentially an apologist for what went on in Cambodia, at one point in time. People who find his work persuasive are usually no more competent in constructing convincing arguments about American policy. Portraying the United States government as bloodthirsty purveyors of random, racist violence is plenty outrageous and fallacious.

Part of what makes Ann Coulter and Limbaugh so effective is that even the people opposed to them spend large amounts of time legitimizing them by calling the spotlight back to them. We are fascinated even when we reject them.

What kind of reasoning is this? When presented with a clear, irrefutable reason why you can generalize negatively about a group, you turn around and say that you can't guarantee that people outside this group are better 100% of the time?

The reason we're even talking about how many people believe in Creationism is to validate or invalidate the argument that conservatives are generally stupid and irrational. I don't happen to think that you've got a solid litmus test there. For example, Chomsky has a better grasp of science than most conservatives will ever have. Absolutely. But it hasn't helped him when it comes to making policy.

The fact that you disagree is well-established. It does not represent an actual "point" in this debate, and that's all you've stated in this paragraph. I do think that it's a serious problem when a national leader cites God as his motivation for national policy. Many countries have leaders who are religious, but do not say on TV that God tells them what to do. Do you understand why a lot of people are uncomfortable with that? Even some religious people? The fact is that most religious people know on some level that God does not literally tell you what to do. At most, your belief in him inspires you to think a certain way, but that's like saying "I rely on gut instinct". That's secular but it wouldn't inspire confidence in a national leader either. We want to believe they have a more sophisticated decision-making process.

I understand why it makes you uncomfortable. I don't think it should. I don't know anybody who doesn't rely on gut instinct. Maybe the difference between you and me is that I'm just not shocked to hear it. That isn't a value judgment in favor of "gut feeling" as the source of political behavior, but I think policy actually is decided upon in the same way that many arguments are concluded at the dinner table: "I'm your father, and I have taken care of this family for as long as you've been alive, and I think I know what I'm doing, mister."

Tell me, did widespread agreement with and appeasement for their platform in 2002 and 2003 make them any less aggressive? Nope, not one iota. In fact, one could argue that it only bolstered their confidence. Self-censorship doesn't solve anything. If anything, some of our open contempt for their bullshit would have been really useful in American public discourse in 2002 and 2003. They certainly made no effort to hide their contempt for liberalism.

Refraining from angry outbursts isn't a form of backing down; it's a tactic that's designed to avoid feeding into their hands.

Since when did anyone say that he would not even try to debate issues with any conservative? We're debating with you, aren't we? That's a bullshit strawman you've constructed. What people have said is that when you try to debate, and the guy just ignores points and throws cookie-cutter axioms back at you, there's no point continuing because he is obviously not interested in a serious debate. I defy you to explain what's wrong with that conclusion.

I'm encouraging debate that goes in new directions, too, although I can't remember getting into any arguments where I wasn't at least sure, even if the other person backed out unconvinced, they weren't disturbed by realizing that they couldn't adequately defend themselves with reference to "God said."

[Patrick Degan]

Except "fulminating about the failings of Republican lawmakers and political talk show hosts" is not all the Democrats do. By contrast, all Republicans show themselves capable of is consistently playing a politics of division and have been doing so for decades now.

It's what far too many of their critics do. And the purpose of my original response to this thread was encouraging a change of approach.

Seems the same approach you take to every argument you try to debate —introduce irrelevancies in an attempt to derail the discussion onto grounds you think you can win.

Nixonian Southern Strategy —the key to the RNC playbook in every national contest since 1968. That and their constantly pushing, not so subtly, the idea that the GOP is God's Own Party. You really have no argument here no matter how much you pretend you do.

Propagating the idea that God would want you to vote for the Republican Party is crass manipulation, and arguably debatable, even if we accept Him as a given. It is not, however, racist.

The politics of religion can, of course, be used to exclude, and often is. Nobody's denying that. Once again, I have been encouraging arguments that leave the ethics of that exclusion as a second-order question, since it will be impossible to appeal to morality without first putting Scripture's validity in question.

Nice how you simply ignore wholesale the Nixon strategy which directly trades on racism as it's core principle toward sustaining their power base and is also a politics of division and exclusion as is the religion angle: the two pillars of RNC electoral gamesmanship.

You very sloppily called Turner a racist for using the "house negro" appelation against Rice and misapplied the term racism, which refers to the stereotyping of an entire group based solely on ethnicity or skin colour. Now you backpedal when you get caught having clearly demonstrated that you didn't know who you were talking about and still try to play the apples/oranges game.

Please. You're playing semantics to avoid admitting that you made a dumb move, and you know it.

Sayeth the little semantics-whore who's desperately trying to escape his own very visible blunder in this thread. How cute.

Turner's insult "works" because of the implication that the Republican Party is exclusively the white man's party. That's a scurrilous, wrong-headed argument, and to claim that blacks have a necessary allegiance to any one end of the political spectrum is frankly outrageous. According to social preferences, the Republican Party is increasingly the party of religious Hispanics, for example. Certainly a minority that identifies with Republican principles or policies is not a "race traitor."

Yeah. "Some of their best friends are black and hispanic". Big deal that the GOP includes a few minorities in its ranks to split the vote, or to offer cover for what has been and continues to be a party run of, by, and for, rich old white men and their exclusive interests.

[Samuel]

Propagating the idea that God would want you to vote for the Republican Party is crass manipulation, and arguably debatable, even if we accept Him as a given.

Why? Interventionist God would have a favorite party- this is a deity who had a favorite people after all.

I happen to think that Chomsky was essentially an apologist for what went on in Cambodia, at one point in time. People who find his work persuasive are usually no more competent in constructing convincing arguments about American policy.

What was his politics? I'm not aware of his work outside linguistics.

I don't know anybody who doesn't rely on gut instinct.

Depends on what you mean.

"I'm your father, and I have taken care of this family for as long as you've been alive, and I think I know what I'm doing, mister."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

[SirNitram]

Going back on topic here, this years CPAC has been hilariously psychotic

100% of unliscensed, unemployed, tax evading plumbers-turned-conservative-media-icons believe in shooting Congress members.

Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot ‘em. And there’d be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don’t talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict.

I have to wonder what this 'Back in the day' was. Perhaps early hunter-gather periods.

The worship of Rush Limbaugh is.. Astounding. I've heard the Dems plan to paint him as the leader of the GOP. They won't really have to try. The GOP has fully embraced him and his madness.

[Surlethe]

I have to wonder what this 'Back in the day' was. Perhaps early hunter-gather periods.

The conservative movement has created a mythological version of American history. It's one where the founding fathers were mostly evangelical Christians, "under God" has been the pledge and "In God we Trust" the motto since the very beginning, and, apparently, when people talked ill of the troops in the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries, they were shot.

[Axis Kast]

Seems the same approach you take to every argument you try to debate —introduce irrelevancies in an attempt to derail the discussion onto grounds you think you can win.

What irrelevancies? We're talking about whether Democrats, and particularly members of this community, have been approaching the problem from a useful angle. Do you deny that current promotion of gay marriage is often centered on the morality or immorality of exclusion based on sexual preference? When was the last time you hear a liberal respond to religiously-derived explication of conservative policy with, "All right. Let's talk about the Bible, then"?

Mike is absolutely correct to insist that Republicans regularly deploy "a politics of division." But trying to challenge division on its own merits -- which is what happens most of the time -- gets us nowhere.

Nice how you simply ignore wholesale the Nixon strategy which directly trades on racism as it's core principle toward sustaining their power base and is also a politics of division and exclusion as is the religion angle: the two pillars of RNC electoral gamesmanship.

Newsflash: Nixon is dead. The present-day appeal of the Republican Party to the southern population has to do with cultural and social similarities, not implicit promises to maintain the institutions of racial division.

Sayeth the little semantics-whore who's desperately trying to escape his own very visible blunder in this thread. How cute.

I'm not the guy who responded to a denunciation of completely inappropriate insults with the, "He's black! It's okay!" retort.

Yeah. "Some of their best friends are black and hispanic". Big deal that the GOP includes a few minorities in its ranks to split the vote, or to offer cover for what has been and continues to be a party run of, by, and for, rich old white men and their exclusive interests.

Your strawman is pathetic. The attractiveness of Republican social politics is growing among minority populations. Period.

[Qwerty 42]

Going back on topic here, this years CPAC has been hilariously psychotic

Things that won't rise again: Taxes

I just wondered that if our founders thought taxation without representation was bad, what would they think of representation WITH taxation?

Wait, what? I think someone missed the point of the Revolution.

[Darth Wong]

@Axis Kast: if it is unfair to characterize Republicans by Rush Limbaugh as you seem to think, then where are the Republicans who openly repudiate Limbaugh? The last guy who did that ended up going on his show and kissing his ass to beg for his forgiveness.

As for creationism, you're just being totally unreasonable. Nobody would challenge it if I said that I would never elect a president who claims that he himself is the Messiah; in fact 99% of America would probably agree with me. But a different and equally irrational belief, expressed just as publicly, is suddenly OK and it's totally unfair of me to say anything negative about people who believe such things. Right? And why is that? Oh yeah, because it's "mainstream" in America. Sorry, but that's not a justification of anything.

[Patrick Degan]

Seems the same approach you take to every argument you try to debate —introduce irrelevancies in an attempt to derail the discussion onto grounds you think you can win.

What irrelevancies? We're talking about whether Democrats, and particularly members of this community, have been approaching the problem from a useful angle. Do you deny that current promotion of gay marriage is often centered on the morality or immorality of exclusion based on sexual preference? When was the last time you hear a liberal respond to religiously-derived explication of conservative policy with, "All right. Let's talk about the Bible, then"?

No, that is what YOU are arguing and attempting to shift the ground of this thread onto. Basically, your entire rebuttal of the point that the conservative/Republican M/O for decades has been based on blatant appeals to racism, fear, and religious intolerance has been: "well, some liberals say mean things too" and then try to make some equivalence on that basis.

And plenty of liberals have attempted to discuss the validity of the Bible as a source for truth, in political debates. Bible-thumpers will immediately shut down the second you question it's merits on that ground because they have a huge emotional investment in their personal relationship with the Invisible Cloud-Being and his book.

Nice how you simply ignore wholesale the Nixon strategy which directly trades on racism as it's core principle toward sustaining their power base and is also a politics of division and exclusion as is the religion angle: the two pillars of RNC electoral gamesmanship.

Newsflash: Nixon is dead. The present-day appeal of the Republican Party to the southern population has to do with cultural and social similarities, not implicit promises to maintain the institutions of racial division.

Newsflash: Nixon's influence lives. The very appeal you speak of is what that man built his campaign upon in 1968, is based upon setting blacks as the bad guys threatening white security (what do you think "cultural and social similarities" are predicated upon?), and has remained at the core of the RNC playbook ever since.

Sayeth the little semantics-whore who's desperately trying to escape his own very visible blunder in this thread. How cute.

I'm not the guy who responded to a denunciation of completely inappropriate insults with the, "He's black! It's okay!" retort.

No, you're the one who blundered ahead and called Calvin Turner a racist without realising the man was black. Racism only applies when members of one group are attacking the members of a different group based upon that difference.

Yeah. "Some of their best friends are black and hispanic". Big deal that the GOP includes a few minorities in its ranks to split the vote, or to offer cover for what has been and continues to be a party run of, by, and for, rich old white men and their exclusive interests.

Your strawman is pathetic. The attractiveness of Republican social politics is growing among minority populations. Period.

NOT a strawman. No matter whether some blacks and hispanics buy into GOP snake-oil politics, the only interests that are served in the end are those of rich old white men.

[Samuel]

Wait, what? I think someone missed the point of the Revolution.

I know- the British bastards were forcing us to pay for a war fought for to defend the colonies and the had the temerity to lower the price of tea by cutting out the colonial middle man!

When was the last time you hear a liberal respond to religiously-derived explication of conservative policy with, "All right. Let's talk about the Bible, then"?

Because they are right. The bible calls for the execution of homosexual individuals.

Newsflash: Nixon is dead. The present-day appeal of the Republican Party to the southern population has to do with cultural and social similarities, not implicit promises to maintain the institutions of racial division.

One of the things new members do is look through the archieves. I remember a fun 2003 article about how in a school they were resegregating the prom ( specifically setting up a private white only one). This stuff mostly occurs in the rural areas of the south and- amazingly enough- those areas vote overwhelmingly Republican. Lets not forget that less than 10% of blacks identify themselves as Republicans.

Of course, the platform isn't to maintain institution of racial division, but insure white priviledge. At least that is Rush's position.

Your strawman is pathetic. The attractiveness of Republican social politics is growing among religiously conservative populations. Period.

Fixed it for you.

I have to wonder what this 'Back in the day' was. Perhaps early hunter-gather periods.

Trust me, they didn't venerate the military back then. It is actually rather recent as for much of history not being paid made them prone to looting.

[SirNitram]

@Axis Kast: if it is unfair to characterize Republicans by Rush Limbaugh as you seem to think, then where are the Republicans who openly repudiate Limbaugh? The last guy who did that ended up going on his show and kissing his ass to beg for his forgiveness.

CPAC is a treasure trove of proof of Rush's position.

TP: What do you think about what Rush said about, I mean, do you hope, should we hope that President Obama fails?

LEVIN: Yes.

TP: Yes?

SANTORUM: If…absolutely we hope that his policies fail.

TP: Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that we shouldn’t hope for President Obama to succeed?

DELAY: Well, exactly right. I don’t want this for our nation. That’s for sure.

'TP' is the liberal news/commentary site ThinkProgress, so it's not like it wasn't a DUH moment that these two could've avoided if they wanted to.

McCONNELL: Compare that [CPAC] to the left’s annual attempt to imitate, the so-called Take Back America conference, which last year drew about a third as many people as CPAC. What this proves, of course, is that conservatives are more fun and interesting than liberals.

I mean, let’s be honest. Who wants to hang out with guys like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, when you can be with Rush Limbaugh!

This is just three comments of big names in the GOP cuddling up to Limbaugh, just at one convention. Took no effort at all to find.

[Axis Kast]

If it is unfair to characterize Republicans by Rush Limbaugh as you seem to think, then where are the Republicans who openly repudiate Limbaugh? The last guy who did that ended up going on his show and kissing his ass to beg for his forgiveness.

Why spend my time battling one man's brand of idiocy? I understand that many people are hideously offended by Limbaugh. That's unfortunate. Me? I don't listen to, or read, him. Virtually one hundred percent of my exposure is via SD.net.

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reily, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter speak to members of one particular demographic. Many people embrace them as entertaining and "more or less on the mark." As I've said, it isn't necessary to think that what he says is always an accurate reflection of the truth, so long as you're reconciled to imprecisions and strawmen. To put it another way, his listeners know that Limbaugh is most bile. They're not tuning in to listen to unfettered truth. It's the same way that liberals might feel after watching a Moore documentary. They understand that it's biased, and needs fact-checking, but it speaks to problems they think ought to be addressed, and they aren't bothered by Moore's own emotional investment in the details.

Republicans don't necessarily feel troubled about Rush Limbaugh. I don't read or listen to any of his products, for example. My exposure to him is actually almost exclusively through angry references to his politics on these fora. I don't see the need to repudiate the opinions of man who doesn't speak for me. People will know what I stand for based on the words that come from my mouth.

As for creationism, you're just being totally unreasonable. Nobody would challenge it if I said that I would never elect a president who claims that he himself is the Messiah; in fact 99% of America would probably agree with me. But a different and equally irrational belief, expressed just as publicly, is suddenly OK and it's totally unfair of me to say anything negative about people who believe such things. Right? And why is that? Oh yeah, because it's "mainstream" in America. Sorry, but that's not a justification of anything.

I just told you. I think that Bush's "stunning admission" is the equivalent of admitting something we should all be aware of by now: that presidents are not geniuses, but men who act off gut instinct as much as anything else. Richard Nixon, whose handler, Henry Kissinger, elevated deliberate control of policy to an art form, chose to veto a U.N. embargo of Rhodesia not because of sympathy for the white settler state, but, according to a phone transcript released in 2003, because he wanted to "stick it" to the African delegations that had recently voted Taiwan out of the Security Council. This is unfortunate, but it is also unsurprising. Bush's statement was more of the same, not some radical departure into new territory nobody really expected.

No, that is what YOU are arguing and attempting to shift the ground of this thread onto. Basically, your entire rebuttal of the point that the conservative/Republican M/O for decades has been based on blatant appeals to racism, fear, and religious intolerance has been: "well, some liberals say mean things too" and then try to make some equivalence on that basis.

Once again, you read back to 1968, close your fingers around the Southern Strategy, and try to slather a broad streak with a brush that no longer holds any paint.

Southern loyalty to the Republican Party has to do with its perceived reflection of Christian values and identity as the party of states' rights, which, if it may have been a codeword for segregation in the 1960s, is today about "small government," lower taxes, and perceptions of honest patriotism. Democrats are easily made out to have bleeding hearts, a penchant to trust government to solve problems when it is allegedly dysfunctional by definition (which is already being discussed in another thread), and a disrespectful desire to violate the sanctity of the family by injecting a values system from the outside. These accusations are all hogwash, but none of them are racist.

And plenty of liberals have attempted to discuss the validity of the Bible as a source for truth, in political debates. Bible-thumpers will immediately shut down the second you question it's merits on that ground because they have a huge emotional investment in their personal relationship with the Invisible Cloud-Being and his book.

In my experience, the shut-down occurs much farther into the dialogue.

No, you're the one who blundered ahead and called Calvin Turner a racist without realising the man was black. Racism only applies when members of one group are attacking the members of a different group based upon that difference.

Calvin Turner's remark was every bit as careless and insensitive as that recent cartoon about the chimp that made so many people so furious. What's funny about that is that a very strong argument can be made that that chimp wasn't actually a stand-in for Obama. (I'd never thought of the stimulus bill as being associated with Obama, per se, until Al Sharpton insisted that it was so, and the role of the police in the comic throws into serious question any idea that it exhorts assassination.) Nobody can defend Calvin Turner.

NOT a strawman. No matter whether some blacks and hispanics buy into GOP snake-oil politics, the only interests that are served in the end are those of rich old white men.

Interesting that you know better about what's good for folks than they do themselves. Ever stop and think that this is exactly what so many of them get so angry about?

It's pure fact that the GOP satisfies the social interests of religious conservatives of every color. You and I agree that those interests are illegitimate and wrongheaded. Surely you're not going to sit here and insist to me that a Hispanic who opposes gay marriage is going to be better served, if that's the primary issue on which s/he votes, by a Democrat.

[Glocksman]

Question:
Is that poll in Hannity's forum a poll put up by Hannity, or merely one put up by someone who registered on his site?

I despise Hannity as one of the most stupid and/or dishonest RNC shills out there, but at the same time I want to be fair and assign guilt to the proper party.

That said, if I hear Hannity say 'socialism' one more time, I'm going to reach through the speaker and strangle him.

[SirNitram]

Question:
Is that poll in Hannity's forum a poll put up by Hannity, or merely one put up by someone who registered on his site?

I think it's a regular user.

If you want atrocity by actual hosts, Glenn Beck's show aired 'war gaming' the upcoming civil war against the Obama tyranny.

[Patrick Degan]

No, that is what YOU are arguing and attempting to shift the ground of this thread onto. Basically, your entire rebuttal of the point that the conservative/Republican M/O for decades has been based on blatant appeals to racism, fear, and religious intolerance has been: "well, some liberals say mean things too" and then try to make some equivalence on that basis.

Once again, you read back to 1968, close your fingers around the Southern Strategy, and try to slather a broad streak with a brush that no longer holds any paint.

Because you say it doesn't? Sorry, but it very clearly does when GOP campaigns get away with bullshit like the Willie Horton scaremongering propaganda and the "McCain's illegitimate black baby" smearjob in addition to the often not-subtle attacks on affirmative action (e.g. the Helms/Gantt senate race of 1996).

Southern loyalty to the Republican Party has to do with its perceived reflection of Christian values and identity as the party of states' rights, which, if it may have been a codeword for segregation in the 1960s, is today about "small government," lower taxes, and perceptions of honest patriotism. Democrats are easily made out to have bleeding hearts, a penchant to trust government to solve problems when it is allegedly dysfunctional by definition (which is already being discussed in another thread), and a disrespectful desire to violate the sanctity of the family by injecting a values system from the outside. These accusations are all hogwash, but none of them are racist.

Please. Part of the GOP's appeal to southern voters has been predicated upon things like affirmative action being part of the "big government" problem. And despite what you continue to insist, States' Rights is still a codeword for "dem Feds have no business tellin us we need to give 'dem coons rights". The game is really given away when you've got national GOP leaders (Trent Lott, John Ashcroft) writing for Southern nationalist rags like Southern Partisan and supporting one state's insistence on its right to fly the Confederate flag over the state capitol building.

No, you're the one who blundered ahead and called Calvin Turner a racist without realising the man was black. Racism only applies when members of one group are attacking the members of a different group based upon that difference.

Calvin Turner's remark was every bit as careless and insensitive as that recent cartoon about the chimp that made so many people so furious. What's funny about that is that a very strong argument can be made that that chimp wasn't actually a stand-in for Obama. (I'd never thought of the stimulus bill as being associated with Obama, per se, until Al Sharpton insisted that it was so, and the role of the police in the comic throws into serious question any idea that it exhorts assassination.) Nobody can defend Calvin Turner.

If you say so, Gracie. The particular cartoon's rather opaque "joke" turned upon knowledge of a little-known incident outside of New York appearing in a Murdoch-owned newspaper which "just happened" to link a stereotypical image for black people with the very bill being pushed by the current president, a black man. None of this has anything to do with the Calvin Turner issue, which still cannot be defined as racist as you attempted to do in complete ignorance of who you were speaking of. That you continue to go to these lengths to try to defend your blunder on this point is, sad to say, typical of you. But by all means, just continue to make a fool of yourself on this instead of letting it drop. It's most entertaining.

NOT a strawman. No matter whether some blacks and hispanics buy into GOP snake-oil politics, the only interests that are served in the end are those of rich old white men.

It's pure fact that the GOP satisfies the social interests of religious conservatives of every color. You and I agree that those interests are illegitimate and wrongheaded. Surely you're not going to sit here and insist to me that a Hispanic who opposes gay marriage is going to be better served, if that's the primary issue on which s/he votes, by a Democrat.

When that hispanic's economic interests are clearly being undermined by the party he's voting for, I can say it and so can anybody else who can view the issue objectively. I know full well he only cares that "dem Queers can't get married" far more so than anything else that really matters in his life or to his family, such as his own economic security and life in a well-functioning society. And once more, this is all part of serving the interests the GOP is out to protect —those of rich old white men.

[Darth Wong]

Why spend my time battling one man's brand of idiocy? I understand that many people are hideously offended by Limbaugh. That's unfortunate. Me? I don't listen to, or read, him.

You're totally ignoring the point, which is that the Republican party publicly supports Limbaugh, yet you keep saying it's unfair to say the Republicans are unreasonable or that Limbaugh represents them in any way. Yes, they represent one particular demographic. Unfortunately, that demographic happens to have control of the Republican party, otherwise the Republican party would not be so eager to associate itself with such a loathsome character.

I just told you. I think that Bush's "stunning admission" is the equivalent of admitting something we should all be aware of by now: that presidents are not geniuses, but men who act off gut instinct as much as anything else. Richard Nixon, whose handler, Henry Kissinger, elevated deliberate control of policy to an art form, chose to veto a U.N. embargo of Rhodesia not because of sympathy for the white settler state, but, according to a phone transcript released in 2003, because he wanted to "stick it" to the African delegations that had recently voted Taiwan out of the Security Council. This is unfortunate, but it is also unsurprising. Bush's statement was more of the same, not some radical departure into new territory nobody really expected.

Do I really need to point out the fallacy you're employing here? You're assuming that all presidents are equally irrational and that therefore, any evidence of irrational decision-making is worthless. Care to justify this claim, apart from relying on some ridiculous black/white fallacy where anyone who isn't perfectly rational is assumed to be the same?

[Terralthra]

No, you're the one who blundered ahead and called Calvin Turner a racist without realising the man was black. Racism only applies when members of one group are attacking the members of a different group based upon that difference.

Without meaning to defend Axis Kast or interfere with the rest of the argument, this definition of racism is sophistic and self-serving. Racism is prejudice against another person by the color of their skin*, regardless of whether that color is the same as yours or not. Easy examples would be negative feelings towards a member of one's own racial group who has assimilated into a different group for not acting "black/mexican/asian/native-american." The very idea that skin color* should dictate behavior is racist; sharing a skin color with the target is not exculpatory.

*: I mean "skin color" here as a stand-in for phenotypal differences between various racial backgrounds: epicanthic folds, skin color, whatever.