A Tale of Two Races

171 responses so far

• 1 MFarmer // Oct 18, 2009 at 12:34 pm

  You can’t create an alliance if the Northeastern good-government types refuse to accept that the goodness or badness of government is not dependent on which party is in power and how smart the power is used — it’s dependent on placing limits on power and upholding meta-values. We’ve been down this road too many times, switching parties while government power grows and grows regardless of the party in power — each gang saying they are smarter and more compassionate than the last. The independent growth is made up of people from all over who are tired of State intervention and nannyism — whichever party can capture these independents, if they become and remain politically active, will be in power for a long time to come.

• 2 MFarmer // Oct 18, 2009 at 12:35 pm

  smart = smartly

• 3 Derek // Oct 18, 2009 at 1:33 pm

  If I was someone who made a living from loosely coupled analogies I’d tie this story to the purges by the fascists, and the communists, on charges of impurity.

• 4 reg // Oct 18, 2009 at 2:02 pm

  David this is beginning to resemble the split in the PC party in Canada.I believe that the cause is the same- party elites are taking conservatives too much for granted.The Tea party crowds aren’t a bunch of mouth breathing knuckle draggers, they are real people pissed off with the direction of the US. The corruption,cronyism of Mulroney’s tories broke the assumption that the Red Tories could do whatever and conservatives would have to vote PC as to do otherwise would elect Liberals or NDP.I hope the Republican party can get itself together and not endure a split like the Canadian Tories.Both sides have to reconcile,but the leadership has the farther distance to walk back.

• 5 montee // Oct 18, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  The upper level of the GOP has lost its brains. For too long the leadership of the party had more interest in its selfish needs and special interests. Be it the more liberal, moderate or conservative republicans. The main problem to me is an absolute culture of corruption that has lead to a gradual disconnect between various elements. Which is why I favour future leaders who realise we need to root out the cancer that has spread so far and too deep at the upper levels it has affected even the grassroots.

• 6 EscapeVelocity // Oct 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm

  reg, Im fairly certain that Frum thinks that the Conservatives should be disempowered and he is driving the split.

• 7 race42008.com » Blog Archive » Gosh Daggett! // Oct 18, 2009 at 3:03 pm

  [...] Frum has an interesting piece comparing New York 23 and the New Jersey Gubernatorial campaign.  He writes:  My good friend Jim Geraghty observes at National Review: “I realize this statement will break [...]

• 8 spikeytx86 // Oct 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  reg,

  I agree that the GOP leadership has taken the base for granted and is wholly disconnected and insulated from the reality that exists for most folks outside of the Beltway.

  However, The Conservative base has to realize the party can not exist as a purely Conservative party either if they ever hope of Governing again. The Republican party needs to be a Center-Right party which means on many matters the Party is going to be pragmatic about how it pursues certain issues and even adopt a few downright centrists proposals. It can not win on just being an ideological party alone.

  Conservatives make up around 3/8 of the electorate. That means the party needs to woo an additional 12-13% of the electorate to win. And this can only be achieved by appealing to moderates and center right Indies and Democrats. So the base needs to ask itself, “Do we want to Govern and get 70-80% of what we want and broaden ourselves out to centrists and indies or do we want 100% and purity but fight for our agenda from obscurity?”

• 9 EscapeVelocity // Oct 18, 2009 at 3:45 pm

  As a conservative, the Republican Party has to earn my vote. If they are more interested in pandering to Big Government or Social Liberals concerns, then they will lose it.

  Its quite simple.

• 10 mthen // Oct 18, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  Frum decries hypocrisy but apparently doesnt recognize his own. Hoffman running is bad. Dagget running is good. KBH running in Texas is good. Youre transparent Frum.

• 11 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 4:47 pm

  Who cares about political races in the Northeast….they are all a bunch of leftwingers, it’s just a matter of degree.

• 12 jjv // Oct 18, 2009 at 4:54 pm

  Why is the Republican Party not matching its candidates to the constituency? New Jersey could support a slightly more pro-life governor but likely not someone solid down the line. The 23d is going to elect a pro-life anti-same sex marriage Democrat over an Acorn supporting pro-same sex marriage Republican. When the Democratic Party ruled all it surveyed it ran right-wingers in the South, mavericks in the West and Liberals in the North. Majorities are cobbled together and the Republican cobbler seems to be using the wrong materials in the wrong regions.

• 13 jjv // Oct 18, 2009 at 5:43 pm

  ireign:

  I meant the years of Democratic dominance 1932-1968. In those years they had the Presidency for all but 8 years of Eisenhower and the Congress for all but 4 years. They held Congress thereafter without losing control of either house until 1980. That is dominance. There were men like Sam Rayburn, William Proxmire, Scoop Jackson, and recently, Bob Kerry all of whome bucked the Party on important issues.

• 14 Reason60 // Oct 18, 2009 at 5:46 pm

  These races are a perfect example of how fractured Republicanism is. There is, on one hand, the Tea Party wing, characterized by resentful whites, defense hawkishness, and hardline Christianity, versus the mainstream Republican Reagan Coalition, which is welcoming to immigrants and multi-ethnicities, gays, moderate in foreiegn policy, and willing to accept government intervention in the economy.

  The irony is that the Tea Party wing represents perhaps 20% at most of the electorate; and yet they are convinced that were they to find a candidate who was true to their views, he would win in a landslide.

  Every day, it seems like another republican is excommunicated by the Tea Partiers; first it was McCain, then Spector, then Arnold, then Snowe and Collins, lately Boehner and Graham, even Newt has become persona non grata in some circles. The next to go will be Steele, and with him, the dream of a multi-ethnic party.
  When you cast out Republican politicians for being “too liberal”, you are also casting out the Republicans who think like them. Today millions of moderate Republicans have been cast out of the party by the very conservatives who vow to rebuild it.

  In the 2008 election, Obama captured quite a few Republicans as crossovers; McCain captured almost no Democrats.
  How many of the 52% Obama voters will the Palin/ Jindal ticket capture in 2012?

• 15 MFarmer // Oct 18, 2009 at 5:47 pm

  “As a conservative, the Republican Party has to earn my vote. If they are more interested in pandering to Big Government or Social Liberals concerns, then they will lose it.

  Its quite simple.”

  This says it all. I’m a libertarian who doesn’t have a stake in the Republican Party, but it appears to be the only party where any hope lies to make changes to government intervention. A Republican victory just for the sake of victory is useless if the winners are going to be progressive-lite. This is not an ordinary political skirmish — the stakes have been raised — and if we don’t get a new crop of politicians in who will limit government power, it’s the nation which is at stake, not one of the parties.

• 16 spikeytx86 // Oct 18, 2009 at 5:48 pm

  jjv! I agree as well.

  That was also how the Republican coalition until the past 10 years or so was cobbled together.

  Libertarians in the west, Social Conservatives in the South East, Moderates and Old School conservatives in the mid west, and Moderates and Liberals in the North East.

• 17 spikeytx86 // Oct 18, 2009 at 5:52 pm

  Mfarmer!

  Are you telling me John McCain would have proposed a near trillion dollar stimulus, a trillion dollar + healthcare bill, a $4 trillion dollar budget, and numerous other tax increases and Government interventions?

  No he wouldn’t of. And you know it. So what did conservatives and libertarians voting third party or not voting for the presidential line accomplish?

• 18 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 5:57 pm

  “Every day, it seems like another republican is excommunicated by the Tea Partiers; first it was McCain, then Spector, then Arnold, then Snowe and Collins, lately Boehner and Graham, even Newt has become persona non grata in some circles. The next to go will be Steele, and with him, the dream of a multi-ethnic party”

  Steele needs to go because he’s not a serious man. He’s just launched a website called “What Up” which is an obvious attempt to pander to black people. Talking like some rap artist isn’t going to secure any significant portion of minorities for the GOP. The reality is, blacks are close minded on politics and vote nearly en bloc for Democrats, and now that the Democrats have elected the first black president, it’s absurd to believe the GOP has any shot at the black vote for probably the next 100 years at the minimum.

  The Southeastern conservatives tend to be economic conservatives too. We love low taxes.

• 19 MFarmer // Oct 18, 2009 at 5:57 pm

  reason60, first, you misread the Tea Party movement — it’s more and more made up of independents with a libertarian bent, and their objective is to remove professional politicians who are building a comfortable racket at the expense of tax-payers. The Democrats would be wise to remove all the professional politicians who are more interested in corporate cronyism than they are in protecting the free market, small businesses, individual rights and even people in poverty (the ones they proclaim to represent). But, believe me, members of both parties are going to be under attack if the government doesn’t stop intervening, giving money to favored enterprises, organizations and unions and shackling the free market.

• 20 MFarmer // Oct 18, 2009 at 6:03 pm

  Spikeytx86, I don’t know what you are referring to regarding what I said, but if you are claiming that a congress full of McCains would be good for the country, or not quite as bad as the Democrats, then you are mistaken. It’s a just a slower path with McCains. We need a change in direction. McCain would have been almost as bad as Obama — but in order to change the government, we need more than replacements who are not quite as bad.

  What all this has done is wake people up — and government is about to get a wake up call in 2010.

• 21 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 6:12 pm

  The teaparty movement is mostly conservatives….the liberterians are trying to hijack it, but no way in hell they get those kind of numbers are the teaparties with a majority of conservative participants.

• 22 MFarmer // Oct 18, 2009 at 7:13 pm

  Conservative-intellectual (snicker),

  I’m not saying they are libertarian as in big L libertarian, but libertarian- minded in the sense of limited government and individual rights. Jeez — everybody protects their turf. This is all rather silly. Look, let’s drop all the labels and try to look at the reality — many, many people who don’t particularly care about labels think the government is out of control, spending and intervening too much, and these people will decide the next election — that’s what I’m saying. Hold on to your precious label, though, it’s hard to think without it.

• 23 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 7:23 pm

  You made the disctinction between liberterian and conservative. You whine about labels after using one. What’s the difference b/t a small L liberterian and a big L Liberterian? None that I can see.

  Every word is a label of some sort. It’s how we communicate. To be anti-label is to be anti-communication.

  Hold on to that redneck emotionality, guy. That’s going to do you wonders in life.

• 24 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 7:24 pm

  McCain wouldn’t have been as bad as Obama, and I have no love for McCain. McCain panders to the left but he isn’t an idealogue leftist like Obama.

  This is where Beck kind of gets off track.

• 25 MFarmer // Oct 18, 2009 at 7:56 pm

  redneck emotionality? That’s new one. Do you even know why you wrote that?

  If you can’t understand what I’m saying about having your identity wrapped up in a label, then I can’t help you. Yes, we use labels for communication, but you have to be able to think outside the labels. The difference between big L and little l is big L usually adheres to the Libertarian Party platform, it’s a political designation — little l is just having a libertarian outlook. It’s not rocket science, Mr. Intellectual.

• 26 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 8:03 pm

  You stated that the tea parties are primarily a liberterian movement. That’s just not true, and I responded that it’s primarily a conservative movemenet. Don’t try to hijack conservative movements, Ron Paul bots.

• 27 Reason60 // Oct 18, 2009 at 8:31 pm

  These small “l” libertarians will attack both parties simultaneously, and win over enough support to garner 51% of the election?

  Ambitious, to say the least.

  oh- and these libertarian minded folk believe abortion is a private matter, I assume?

  and they object strenuously to the enlargement of government power that was granted by the Patriot Act, and the legal theories of John Yoo and Dick Cheney?

  What exactly separates the small “l” libertarians from their big “L” cousins? You know, the ones in the Libertarian Party, which also takes on the two big parties,and gets a respectable 5% of the vote.
  Or are they also at war with the Libertarians?

• 28 Reason60 // Oct 18, 2009 at 8:38 pm

  So from what I am gathering on these blogs-
  The Tea Party is willing to write off the black vote (about 10% of the electorate);
  They have no love for the Hispanic community (what with their pressing 1 for English stuff)- another 25%;
  They don’t like gays- another 10% lost;
  Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and other assorted non-Christians are unwelcome- say another 5%;

  So before the Tea Party even gets going, it is working with a full 50% of the electorate that is just gone, written off as unreachable.

  So with the remaining 50%, you seriously think you can build a winning coalition?

• 29 MFarmer // Oct 18, 2009 at 8:40 pm

  My implication — conservative/independent with a libertarian bent — was in relation to the previous post saying they are conservatives. I conceded they are conservatives — I was saying, though, they are mostly independents with a libertarian bent, thus stating that it’s not really partisan. That’s different than saying it’s a libertarian movement, but it can be described that way. I don’t like Ron Paul, Mr. Intellectual — at least the readers can see the weakness of labels, especially the ones we ascribe to ourselves as online monikers. Please don’t hijack the libertarian movement with your tired Republican partisanship — man that stuff is so yesterday — get with the program. Unlike Glenn Beck, I don’t usually are with idiots, and now I remember why. Goodbye.

• 30 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 8:59 pm

  “o from what I am gathering on these blogs-
  The Tea Party is willing to write off the black vote (about 10% of the electorate)”

  This is the exact opposite. The black vote writes off the GOP…that’s their choice. It’s not the GOP’s fault that black people are largely closed minded on politics and vote Democrats nearly en bloc.

  As General Patton once said, if everybody is thinking the same way, somebody’s not thinking. I do think that applies to black voters in America today.

• 31 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 9:00 pm

  I don’t some little guy that whines about the use of “labels” in 5 posts has any room to be “labeling” me an idiot. Words are labels, and words ain’t the devil, despite what your momma may have told you.

• 32 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 9:01 pm

  Are gays really 10% of voters? I find that hard to believe.

• 33 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 9:04 pm

  The fact of the matter is Democrats have always received nearly all the black vote, most of the hispanic vote, nearly all the gay vote, and Republicans have defeated them. If Democrats were able to start losing their stanglehold on the black vote, their party would cease to exist. That’s why Democrats always play the race card on Republicans….they know they got to keep black people voting for Democrats. It’s sad that a major political party seeks to fearmong black people and exploit their natural disdain of white racism to gain their votes.

• 34 Reason60 // Oct 18, 2009 at 10:19 pm

  “The fact of the matter is Democrats have always received nearly all the black vote, most of the hispanic vote, nearly all the gay vote, and Republicans have defeated them.”
  That was correct- in 1980 !
  In 2000, GWB made an amazing effort to reach out to Hispanics- not out of altruism, but out of a nod to reality. And there is a reason why GWB and McCain both distanced themselves from tht SoCons in the general elections.

  I won’t belabor you with statistics on demographics, but I can’t see how any party will ever win another national election by writing off the black/hispanic/gay vote.

• 35 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:11 pm

  You are a sloppy thinker.

  First, the gay vote is probably not even 1% of the electorate. The majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. It’s politically smart to write off the gay vote to gain the votes of those that oppose gay marriage. You don’t want to hear that truth because it doesn’t fit your fantasy world in which everybody supports gay marriage. I dont’ think either BUsh or McCain distanced themselves from social conservatives. Bush opposed gay marriage quite vocally, and McCain never apologized for being pro-life, and McCain even meet Falwell.

  The fact of the matter is Bush won two elections despite only getting 8% of the black vote.

  Again, the GOP is not writing off the black vote. Black people write off the Republican party because the majority of them are close minded on politics. They vote as a race, not individuals, for the Democrat party. That’s not poiltically correct, but it’s the truth. Until they open their minds on political matters, there is nothing the GOP can do. Conservativism is an appeal to the individual, and thus it is an appeal to individuals no matter what their skin color. If they reject conservativism, so be it. Pandering to people based on their skin color will only lead to conservatives throwing out their principles.

• 36 spikeytx86 // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:31 pm

  Reason60!

  Actually both parties split the Black Vote until the sixties.

  But I definitely agree we need to stop alienating Hispanic Voters and resume the push Bush made to get them (and succeeded in getting 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 which is pretty dang good).

  If the GOP can get 55% of the white vote, 40% of the Hispanic vote, 33% of the Asian Vote, and 10% of the black vote they can win any election. This should be our minimum target.

• 37 Moderate // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:36 pm

  escapevelocity, conservative-intellectual:

  The two of you are insane. Since you’ve managed to get online and post a comment, I doubt that your low IQs are sufficient to explain the awfulness of your posts. Insanity is the remaining option.

  Republicans are not in a position to purge anyone, conservative, moderate, or liberal. It’s bad enough that we have to overcome demographic issues (e.g. the black vote being largely unattainable), but you people want to erect additional barriers? Go to hell.

  I’m no populist – far from it – but it’s basic political sense to align the views of representatives with those of their constituencies (especially on the don’t-really-matter issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.). So some out-of-staters won’t be happy if New York elects a liberal Republican? They can eat a bag of dicks.

• 38 KL7212 // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:36 pm

  The real problem with the GOP conservative leaders is that they’ve failed to understand that the public by and large likes Big Government. The best route back to political viability is to continue giving people their government goodies while stressing fiscal responsibility.

  Of course, the GOP no longer has any credibility as fiscally responsible party. In the last three decades, Republican Presidents have presided over a more than four fold increase in the national debt thanks in large part to a quasi-religious devotion to supply side economics.

  People don’t care about tax cuts when they’ve lost their job and they’d rather have their social security and Medicare than a few extra pennies. And in most parts of the country, social conservatism is a non-starter.

  You can’t expand the tent by shrinking it.

• 39 EscapeVelocity // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:45 pm

  No he wouldn’t of. And you know it. So what did conservatives and libertarians voting third party or not voting for the presidential line accomplish? — spikey

  Correction, what did RINOs endorsing Obama and voting for Obama accomplish?

  Fixed it for you.

• 40 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:48 pm

  I love this silly notion that leftwingers put forth that I’m trying to purge people from the Republican party. I can’t stop anybody from voting for the REpublican party especially black people. I’m all about them voting for the Republican party….I want the party to win elections…why do i have to state a rather obvious truth to you? The fact of the matter is the GOP can’t “purge” black people if they all vote like sheep for the Democratic party. I’m tired of people suggesting that we alienate black people from voting for the Republican party…..they chose to vote Democrat….it’s not like we don’t want their vote.

• 41 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:49 pm

  If people liked big government, why do the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare?

• 42 EscapeVelocity // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:49 pm

  oh- and these libertarian minded folk believe abortion is a private matter, I assume? —reason

  Libertarians for Life

  Pro Life is the libertarian position, though many radical libertarians apparently believe that infanticide is okey dokey.

• 43 EscapeVelocity // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:51 pm

  I voted for Bob Barr, however that was a protected protest vote (against McCain), as South Carolina is in strongly Conservative and Repbulican.

• 44 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:52 pm

  If Republicans are going to target specific groups of people, I’d rather focus on women than black people. Women are not en bloc voting for Democrats, and I pretty much think the election of Obama guarantees the Democrats the black vote for at least another 100 years. It’s just a political reality…it’s a waste of campaign dollars to go after a group of people that has demonstrated a consistent close mindedness on politics.

• 45 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:54 pm

  escape where you at in SC? I grew up there in Florence and went to Clemson. I was living in Greenville until gettting laid off last year.

• 46 Moderate // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:54 pm

  KL7212:

  You’ve hit the crux of the matter. Voters don’t actually like what the Republican Party is offering: most people are turned off by excessive proselytizing, cutting-back on social services, and protracted warfare.

  The GOP managed to sneak through for the past decade because of wedge issues and fear from 9/11, but long-term the Republicans will inevitably have to adapt their platform.

  They should start by cutting back on their most unpopular stances (e.g. Gitmo, PATRIOT Act). There’s a good out: Republicans can say “The PATRIOT Act, and other security measures enacted after 9/11, were necessary given the extraordinary threat of the time. They were intended as temporary measures to keep us safe, and they worked. We have now strengthened our internal and external security to the point where the extraordinary threat has diminished, and we can return to normalcy.”

  Of course, the U.S. can keep outsourcing torture, etc. But for God’s sake, don’t make it official policy. Keep it under wraps. People don’t want to hear about that.

• 47 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:56 pm

  The main point of the Patriot Act was to tear down the wall that the democrats put up that prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information. That wall was a major factor in allowing 9-11 to happen.

• 48 EscapeVelocity // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:56 pm

  None of those folks that reason has said that the Conservatives have written off, have been written off by Conservatives.

  Pandering to them as identity groups however is not what Conservativism is about.

  If the GOP becomes that then they will cease to be the party of individualism, equality before the law, and equality of opportunity….and worthless.

  If we have 2 parties pandering to identity political groups, then the country is finished. If the party that panders to identity groups becomes the the dominant party, then the country is finished.

  Its really quite simple.

  These groups do respond to the victimization and wealth redistribution message. Indeed it looks grim. However there really is no alternative, but to fight the good fight.

• 49 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:56 pm

  Torture isn’t American policy. Anybody that says that is a fool.

• 50 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:58 pm

  Leftwingers think f—— waterboarding and sleep deprivation is torture. I’m not sure how the hell they expect the CIA and our military to get information out of terrorist thugs. I don’t think the milk and cookies approach is going to work.

• 51 Moderate // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:01 am

  Republicans practice identity politics. They target white evangelicals.

  Also, waterboarding is unequivocally torture, your contrarian sputtering aside.

• 52 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:03 am

  I love all the Gays and Leftwingers that flock to this site (and Andrew Sullivans).

  Concern trolls and villifiers, anti Christian bigots.

  What a sad ugly crew.

• 53 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:04 am

  It’s a good thing moderate is a florist and not in anyway involved in national security matters. We can’t have these kind of wimps dealing with the terrorists.

  The Democrat party is identity politics….blacks, gays, minorities, “blue collar”, etc. Always telling us we have to pander to these groups. That’s identity politics.

• 54 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:05 am

  Republicans practice identity politics. They target white evangelicals.

  Christians arent a race.

  Black and hispanic Social Conservatives vote Republican. (Well, many of the Black Social Cons dont).

  Christians arent racists. You can keep villifying people and fearmongering minorities…however the results of that are ugly and you should be ashamed of yourself.

• 55 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:07 am

  You are full of it if you think republicans are specificially targeting “white evangeliccals”. You are putting a racist spin on it that’s not there.

• 56 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:07 am

  Actually, blue collar pandering is classist.

  For what its worth, I wish the Democrats would return to just classism and ditch identity politics. Lets argue about economics and individuals, not cultural or biological groups.

• 57 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:09 am

  I don’t think the Democrats have ever left the class envy approach.

• 58 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:09 am

  you are putting a racist spin on it that’s not there. –ci

  Its what they do. Call people racists and fearmonger minorities….stoke resentment, feeling of victimization with the convenient scapegoat, and herd the vote.

  This is going to end badly in Europe very soon. It will end badly here as well.

• 59 Moderate // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:12 am

  escapevelocity: “Christians aren’t a race.”

  1) Identity politics doesn’t have to involve a race. You’re out of your depth.

  2) I never said “Christians.” I said “white evangelicals,” a distinct subgroup of Christians.

  3) I am a Christian. Your accusation of anti-Christian bigotry is laughable.

• 60 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:14 am

  Evangelical Christians are just Protestants….Christians that believe the bible is the final word on God and not the Church. I never understood why leftwingers think calling a Christian an evangelical is some kind of insult.

• 61 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:15 am

  My House District is a racist district gerrymandered on the basis of skin color to exclude whites.

  King Clyburn rules this area.

• 62 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:15 am

  Clyburn is a moron. Are you in Florence?

• 63 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:19 am

  Moderate, I have been told countless times, that I am an ignorant uneducated hillbilly rube clinging to his guns and religion.

  Your and Leftwinger’s hatred and villification doesnt bother me anymore.

• 64 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:19 am

  Outside of Charleston.

• 65 Moderate // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:21 am

  I don’t consider “evangelical” to be an insult. You’re the only person who has suggested that.

  My quote, verbatim: “Republicans practice identity politics. They target white evangelicals.”

  I chose my words carefully. Evangelicals aren’t “just Protestants;” they are a distinct subgroup. Republicans don’t target mainline Protestant voters, they target white evangelicals. Hence the focus on gays, abortion, intelligent design, etc.

• 66 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:22 am

  I think most Christians are opposed go gay marriage, abortion, and skeptical of evolution.

  NOt just those nefarious evangelical Christians that you think are out to get you.

• 67 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:23 am

  But do keep up the hatred and villification….it only alienates Christian voters, European Caucasian voters, Male voters.

  Maybe if the Left quite villifying these voters, sneering at them and their religon and culture….they wouldnt be fleeing to so called Far Right (actually Communitarian Socialist) parties in Europe.

  But alas…

• 68 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:23 am

  I don’t consider “evangelical” to be an insult. You’re the only person who has suggested that. — moderate

  I didnt suggest that.

  You are truly confused.

• 69 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:24 am

  Cool, I lived in Charleston for a year, West Ashley. I was enrolled in the pharmacy school at MUSC.

• 70 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:24 am

  I was talking to moderate. Seems you are.

• 71 Moderate // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:27 am

  escapevelocity: “Moderate, I have been told countless times, that I am an ignorant uneducated hillbilly rube clinging to his guns and religion.”

  I have never called you uneducated. I have never called you a hillbilly. I have never called you a rube. I have never suggested that you cling to guns and/or religion.

  You are attacking figments of your imagination.

  [For the record, I am a Christian white male, and I support the 2nd Amendment. I also think you're grossly ignorant based on your posts.]

• 72 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:27 am

  This forum needs a quote feature like most political forums.

• 73 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:28 am

  All liberals tell you they support the 2nd admendent and they are Christians. That’s suppose to give them “cred” as conservative-bashers.

• 74 Moderate // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:30 am

  Agreed, a quote function would help. My posts are getting tangled.

  I fully support gun-owners’ rights. And I am a practicing Christian. I mention this only because I was being lumped in with “anti-gun, anti-religion” types.

  My distaste for your far-right politics is unrelated to my religion, ethnicity, or view on guns.

• 75 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:32 am

  What do you qualify as “far right”? You just label people as extremist without defining it.

  Opposition to gay marraige and abortion is not far right.

• 76 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:34 am

  Let me give you an example of the arguement that is being made here.

  The Christian Democrats better start pandering the Muslims if they want to win elections in the future. Whites and Christians are a declining demographic. Implementing Shariah Law should be undertaken but instead of allowing others to do it, and Christian Democrats having no say in shaping its form, just totally disempower the Christian Democrat Party.

  Do you see how silly that sounds?

• 77 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:36 am

  I have to giggle when some leftwing kook says Republicans need to go after the gay vote. The majority of Americans oppose gay marraige. It even gets slapped down in liberal states like California, not exactly the Bible Belt.

• 78 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:37 am

  Far Right now means anyone to the right of John McCain.

  Im an American Christian Classically Liberal Conservative with Libertarian Leanings.

  or in Moderate or Leftwing lingo…..a Far Right Fascist.

• 79 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:37 am

  I don’t know…..leftwingers like moderate were calling McCain a right wing extremist, at least during the campaign.

• 80 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:41 am

  I can see that. Libearls are often fond of throwing Oreo cookies at black conservatives and calling them Uncle Toms.

• 81 Moderate // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:41 am

  Far-right is context specific. It depends on where the center is obviously: far right in Europe is going to be different than far right in the United States. Far right in Massachusetts is different than far right in South Carolina.

  Opposition to gay marriage and abortion are not far right. They are mainstream views in the U.S.

  Far right in the United States:

  - Tearing down the wall of separation between church and state (e.g. teaching intelligent design in the science classroom)

  - Opposition to legal immigrants (e.g. Tom Tancredo’s position against all immigrants)

  - Supporting torture

  - Failing to differentiate between peaceful Muslims and radical Islamists

  Furthermore, far-right can mean different things in different states. Support for the Iraq War is a far-right position in Massachusetts, and a mainstream view in South Carolina.

• 82 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:42 am

  I can’t wait for noon tomorrow. It’ll be interesting to hear what El Rushbo has to say about Sharpton’s threat to sue him for defamation.

• 83 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:44 am

  I think you are just far left.

  Intelligent design is a theory supported by scienetists. You are a militant atheist that can’t handle that, but there’s no more proof for evolution than intelligent design. I’d suggest neither belongs in a high school science class. They should spend the time learning about science that has been proven true.

• 84 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 am

  Far Right is context specific, for anyone that wants to smear (especially a Conservative) that they disagree on policy with.

  Glad we cleared that up.

• 85 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:47 am

  One simple question that Darwnists can never answer is this: Why doesn’t man run around on 4 legs like a cheetah and all other animals? They have speed far superior to ours….it would seem that from a survial standpoint that it would have been more beneficial for man to walk on four legs rather than upright on two.

• 86 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:49 am

  I never understood why liberals get their panties in a wad over intelligent design being taught in a high school class. I dont’ see conservatives trying to ban evolution from being taught even though it makes no sense at all if you actually think about it. Natural selection cannot originate new traits…it only perserves or elimimnates traits a creature already has. Many leftwingers confuse or conflate on purpose natural selection and evolutiion. They are not the same thing.

• 87 Moderate // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:57 am

  Lack of understanding about natural selection is irrelevant to its truth. It is not up for dispute amongst scientists.

  conservative-intellectual:

  You call me a “militant atheist”? I’ve identified myself as a Christian – twice! – in this very thread. Either you are illiterate or a liar; there is no third option.

• 88 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:06 am

  Well, I dont want to argue about ID and Evolution.

  My position is that they are both science. And some people want to censor it. They are no better than those who tried to censor and excomunicate Darwinists in the past….both anti science, and anti scientific freedom.

• 89 KL7212 // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:08 am

  >If people liked big government, why do the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare?

  The short answer is that they’re stupid and uninformed. The longer answer is that it’s not necessarily because they favor or oppose the program, but simply can’t be bothered to put any real effort into learning about what is being proposed.

  Besides, who says that a majority of Americans oppose the program? And even if they do, they still trust the President by a wide margin over the Republican Party on the issue. “First past the post…”.

• 90 KL7212 // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:12 am

  But let’s assume that you’re right, conservative-intellectual and opposition to Obamacare is the majority position. Do you really think the American people would favor cutting or even abolishing Medicare, Social Security or the VA? After all, these programs are the biggest part of the budgetary pie, by far.

  Propose “privatizing” Social Security (talk about a contradiction) or slashing Medicare. See how far you get.

• 91 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:12 am

  Classic Leftwing sentiments and governance.

  The people are stupid. They need smart Leftwingers to expand government and regulations to micro manage the stupid sheeple’s lives.

• 92 KL7212 // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:28 am

  >I never understood why liberals get their panties in a wad over intelligent design being taught in a high school class.

  I’m not a liberal, but I oppose Intelligent Design because it’s clearly a stealth attempt to undermine scientific inquiry by Christian religionists. It’s Creationism masquerading as science. It simply doesn’t belong in a science class. It’s religious dogma diguised as science. Period.

  Unlike rational scientific inquiry, ID postulates, without any proof, that God exists and created the universe. It then attempts to reconcile this belief in the Creator by twisting science to justify religious faith in the Divine. This is the worst kind of politics. It reminds me of Stalin’s interference in the field of genetics to justify his regime’s agricultural policies.

  Thanks but no thanks.

• 93 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:33 am

  but I oppose Intelligent Design because it’s clearly a stealth attempt to undermine scientific inquiry — KL

  Of course it does nothing of the sort.

  Unlike rational scientific inquiry, ID postulates, without any proof, that God exists and created the universe. — KL

  That isnt what it postulates.

  Dark matter/energy without any proof, postulates that magic dust energy exists to reconcile the belief in models, theories, and laws that dont make any sense without magic dust. The Science of the Gaps.

• 94 KL7212 // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:34 am

  >The people are stupid. They need smart Leftwingers to expand government and regulations to micro manage the stupid sheeple’s lives.

  No, I’m just talking sense. Americans like Big Government. Our major entitlement programs remain extremely popular. I wasn’t making a political statement.

  Besides are we Republicans really in a position to criticize goverment overreach after eight years of President Bush? Seriously.

• 95 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:36 am

  It reminds me of Stalin’s interference in the field of genetics to justify his regime’s agricultural policies. — KL

  It reminds me of the Lefts interference in Meteorology, Planetary Geology, and Climatology to justify Obama regime’s energy policies.

  Thanks but no thanks.

• 96 KL7212 // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:49 am

  The scientifc community doesn’t seem to think Global Warming is a hoax. .

  And we wonder why the Republican Party is virtually extinct in large swaths of the Northeast and Mid-West.

  The “one size fits all” conservatism of the current Republican leadership isn’t working. People in places like New England and the mid-Atlantic states are largely indifferent, if not outright hostile, to social conservatism even if they are inclined towards the conservative program as a whole.

  We have a two-party system that rewards coalition building and punishes dogmatism. The suburbs around major cities in the Northeast, once solidly Republican, have become killing fields for the GOP largely because people don’t feel like the Republican Party is in touch with their interests.

• 97 spikeytx86 // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:50 am

  “No, I’m just talking sense. Americans like Big Government. Our major entitlement programs remain extremely popular. I wasn’t making a political statement.”

  They might be big in cost but they aren’t really big when you look at it from the perspective of bureaucrats.

  The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees Medicare and Medicaid, employs 4,100 people with a budget of over $650 billion while NASA, with a budget 22 times smaller employs almost 18,000 people.

  Even the Social Security Administration, with 62,000 employees, is not that large of a bureaucracy compared to it’s size in the budget. It constitutes 37% of the federal budget but only 3.5% of the Federal Workforce.

  Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security account for 60% of the budget but only 4.5% of Federal Non-Defense Employment.

• 98 EscapeVelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:53 am

  2010 is right around the corner.

  We shall see.

  New England has a long history of being hostile to the South, and believes in Tory-Like fashion that it was born to lord over the rest of the country. Nothing has changed.

• 99 spikeytx86 // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:54 am

  KL7212!

  Americans don’t like Big Government, they like social insurance. They like straightforward programs that are setup to protect most Americans from catastrophe like destitution in your non-working years. Programs where people pay in and get a defined payment for their contribution.

  They do not however like big programs that favor a few at the expense of many and are not tied to what one contributes. Americans are not redistributionists.

• 100 sinz54 // Oct 19, 2009 at 9:16 am

  conservative-intellectual:
  

  This forum needs a quote feature like most political forums.

  You can always quote someone else simply by putting the HTML “blockquote” tags around what he wrote.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockquote

  That’s what I just did with your statement.
  Unfortunately, New Majority’s interpreter formats it in an absolutely horrible way, with lots of wasted space–as you can plainly see.

  New Majority’s interpreter also supports the boldface and italics tags. Some folks here have used the boldface tag instead of blockquote, when they want to quote somebody.

• 101 sinz54 // Oct 19, 2009 at 9:22 am

  moderate:

  Another thing that is far right is planning to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the election by promising that this Federal social safety net would remain intact. He kept that promise. In fact, during his Administration, a commission was created that made recommendations that kept SS solvent for decades.

  Republicans win when they run as reformers of government–doing more with less, improved efficiency, less waste, less bureaucracy, fewer bureaucrats. Reagan won that way in 1980 and Gingrich won that way in 1994.

  Republicans lose when they advocate austerity and belt-tightening and fewer services. Goldwater lost that way in 1964.

• 102 sinz54 // Oct 19, 2009 at 9:37 am

  escapevelocity:
  

  My position is that they are both science. And some people want to censor it.

  Let’s take some other beliefs.

  Suppose you believed that some particular belief was NOT science, but pseudoscience. For example, there are folks who believe in homeopathy, Bigfoot, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. You do agree that these things should NOT be taught by science teachers as if they’re valid scientific theories? That no science teacher should be allowed to teach that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are real?

  So then the question is: Is Intelligent Design science or pseudoscience?

  I assert that it’s pseudoscience, for the following reasons:

  1. It’s not verifiable. The ID proponents wave their hands that “irreducibly complex” biological structures could not have evolved. They’re wrong about that. Their implication is that these structures were designed by some Intelligence. But they steadfastly refuse to try to characterize that Intelligence or theorize about it. Why? Because they know that what they really mean is that God did the designing–and they can’t talk about that in public.

  2. Reversed burden of proof: Instead of gathering evidence to support their own theory of an Intelligent Designer, the ID proponents spend all their time trying to poke holes in the Theory of Evolution. Instead of trying to show just how this Intelligence went about designing life on Earth, and what the design process was like, the ID proponents spend all their time trying to show that evolution couldn’t have done everything. As if these are the only two possibilities. This strongly resembles how the UFO nutcases work: “Since no one has come up with a straightforward explanation of that light in the sky that I saw, it must have been a spaceship piloted by aliens.”

  So Intelligent Design resembles pseudoscience rather than science. And unless it can gather enough evidence for its own theory to become scientific, it should not be taught in public schools. At least not yet.

  BTW: It is possible for a pseudoscientific theory to eventually “graduate” to true science, if enough evidence is eventually gathered. An example is nutrition. At one time, the use of nutritional supplements like glucosamine for arthritis and fish oil for heart disease was considered off-trail by mainstream doctors. Now doctors routinely recommend them to their patients. My doctor recommended them to me.

  So I suggest that the ID proponents should stop trying to get public schools to teach their theory as if it’s valid. It’s not ready, not by a long shot. Let them go back to their laboratories and blackboards, and do a lot more research first.

• 103 sinz54 // Oct 19, 2009 at 9:45 am

  conservative-intellectual:
  

  I never understood why liberals get their panties in a wad over intelligent design being taught in a high school class.

  In the landmark case Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District (2005), Judge Jones ruled that Intelligent Design was really just a rehash of creationism.

  And in the earlier case McLean vs. Arkansas (1982), creationism had been ruled to be religion, not science. And the Establishment Clause of the Constitution prevents public schools from advocating religion.

  Bottom line: A public school science teacher can’t teach that God created life on Earth (or the Universe) as if that’s a scientific theory. He can even say he personally believes it. But he can’t say it’s scientific. And he certainly can’t make his students accept it as valid science.

  And that’s true even if you replace the word “God” by “an Intelligent Designer”.

• 104 sinz54 // Oct 19, 2009 at 9:49 am

  spikeytx86:

  In my own dealings with Social Security, I have found it to be a well-run program. Its service representatives are friendly and efficient. Problems are resolved quickly.

  I’ve had less trouble dealing with SS than with several private health insurers, whose bureaucracy, indifferent representatives, my phone calls being put on hold for long periods, etc., are infuriating.

  Certainly there are conservatives who are just against the entire idea of a government social safety net. They are nostalgic for the more laissez-faire society of the 19th century. But they are wrong.

  I’m of the last generation whose grandparents were old enough to remember life before the New Deal. They used to tell me stories about it. It wasn’t any golden age. Not for the working poor struggling to make ends meet.

• 105 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 9:57 am

  ……..The splits over these races are just symptoms of the playing out of a breakup of the Republican coalition of nationalist, fundamentalist and economic conservatives……….there’s a huge fracture (geographic, demographic, cultural ) developing in the GOP as even a cursory reading of that Democracy Corps report I linked to yesterday graphically illustrates and Obama and the democrats will exploit it as a wedge.

  escapevelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:53 am

  ” New England has a long history of being hostile to the South, and believes in Tory-Like fashion that it was born to lord over the rest of the country. Nothing has changed.”

  ……………The North East and mid Atlantic(because Democractic supremacy extends to VA these days) and the west coast are where almost the entire political, economic and cultural power of the country resides. The South is basically the most backward and poorest part of the country despite making huge strides in industrialization over the last 30 years…..the only southern state not existing on federal subsidies is Texas and maybe Florida but Florida is going to become a solid blue state as Cuba ceases to be an issue and Republicans continue to drive nails into the coffin of their relationship with hispanics.

• 106 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 10:02 am

  conservative-intellectual:

  “I never understood why liberals get their panties in a wad over intelligent design being taught in a high school class”

  ………Probably for the same reason they don’t want their kids being taught astrology, necromancy, witchcraft and any other pernicious superstitions that are intended to keep people ignorant.

• 107 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 10:23 am

  sinz54 // Oct 19, 2009 at 9:37 am
  BTW: It is possible for a pseudoscientific theory to eventually “graduate” to true science, if enough evidence is eventually gathered. An example is nutrition. At one time, the use of nutritional supplements like glucosamine for arthritis and fish oil for heart disease was considered off-trail by mainstream doctors. Now doctors routinely recommend them to their patients. My doctor recommended them to me.

  …….You do talk tripe at times……since when has proper diet and “nutrition” been a “pseudo science”…….ever heard of an apple a day keeps the doctor away…….apart from this pseudo example like to give us some other examples where a pseudo science has become accepted into the mainstream……..I can’t think of none…….the intelligent designers can spend the next 500 years at their blackboards and it will still be nonsense.

• 108 sinz54 // Oct 19, 2009 at 10:43 am

  escapevelocity:
  

  New England has a long history of being hostile to the South, and believes in Tory-Like fashion that it was born to lord over the rest of the country. Nothing has changed.

  It’s not a coincidence that the Pacific Northwest’s Blue State culture resembles New England’s Blue State culture.

  Because it came from there!

  In the 19th century, many folks from New England migrated westward, across the Northern Plains. They settled in states like Minnesota, and later in Oregon and Washington State. The building of the Great Northern Railroad helped connect those states together.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GN_Route_Map.png

  Look at the states it connected: Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington State. All of them Obama country.

  Today’s Red State/Blue State culture follows from these historical migration patterns.

• 109 sinz54 // Oct 19, 2009 at 10:48 am

  ottovbs:
  

  since when has proper diet and “nutrition” been a “pseudo science”

  Gee, as an old-timer like me, I thought you would have remembered.

  In the 1950s, mainstream medicine understood that you could become sick from a nutritional deficiency. Like scurvy from inadequate vitamin C.

  But back then, the notion that nutritional supplements could be used as drugs to treat diseases like arthritis or heart disease which are not dietary deficiency diseases was considered off-trail. It’s not anymore. Today, glucosamine is considered a useful drug to treat osteoarthritis, right up there with far more expensive prescription drugs.

  Even today, the FDA requires that a package of nutritional supplement must include the statement “This product is not intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any disease.” Go read the label sometime.

• 110 sinz54 // Oct 19, 2009 at 10:52 am

  ottovbvs:

  Could Intelligent Design ever “graduate” to become legitimate science? Yes, but only if the ID proponents ditch this wink-wink, nudge-nudge “we really mean God” stuff and actually try to investigate the Designer. Just what did that Designer do–and what was he really like?

  In other words: Find that Monolith on the Moon. (I’m sure you recognize the allusion)

  The idea that humanity was deliberately designed by ultra-advanced aliens from outer space was a frequent theme in science fiction. And ideas from science fiction have become reality before.

  But not all of them.

  We did land on the Moon.

  We haven’t found aliens. Not yet, anyway.

• 111 Oneon1isto // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:01 am

  Actually Otto, Sinz is right on this one. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that nutritionists still have some graduating to do. There’s a difference between the food pyramid (which oddly has always been a center for debate) and nutritionism, which seeks to identify singular nutrients that foods deliver to the body as “good” or “bad”. The problems with nutritionism as “science” is that it was always tough to isolate a single component as having positive or negative X effect on the body, reduced entirely without regard to culture, ethnicity, or plenty of other variables that go into health and diet.

  Nutritionism started out as saying “Vitamin C is good for you, take lots of it and it will cure X”. Then it was pseudoscience. It’s come a long way, and now works to determine a more whole index of the body so that the nutritionist can make the proper “prescription”.

  Anyway, I agree that ID is pseudoscience

• 112 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:22 am

  Fact of the matter is, evolution has never been proven. Those that believe it’s true do so on faith, no scientific proof. It’s just as a much a “religion” as intelligent design is. I dont’ care how some judge ruled on the issue….one leftwing judge does not make him the final say on the issue.

• 113 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:25 am

  You can be “ignorant” of the theory of evolution, and still be a superb physician, chemist, etc.

  It is not something that students need to know anythign about to be successful in a scientific career. You believe in evolution…that’s fine, but I think parents have the right not to have the theory forced on their kids in school.

• 114 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:27 am

  Evolution is dogmatism. Darwinists are intolerant of anybody that is skeptical of their theory, and they just personally attack people that have a healthy skepticism of something that nobody has ever proven.

• 115 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:29 am

  Moderate, you are a phony Christian. No real Christian is uptight about intelligent design being taught in schools. There are many respect scientists that support the theory…you are no scientist, and I could care less what you think about the issue. I’m a mechanical engineer and I know that I have more scientific aptitude than you do. You hate Christians…that’s your right, but your identity politics does not mean intelligent design is wrong or the theory of evolution is the truth.

• 116 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:32 am

  People that support government run healthcare are the ones stupid and not informed. Most poor people support it, and you can’t make the case that most poor people are the most intelligent among us.

  You can just look at the government run healthcare systems in other countries and see the disaster that it is. Waiting lines, huge government deficits, people being denied care because they are seen as nothing but budget items, etc.

• 117 Oneon1isto // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:34 am

  Dang Conservative Intellectual.

  Actually, evolution is kind of important to biology, when you delve into biodiversity and genetics. But you’re right, ummm…if I’m studying physics I don’t have to necessarily know much about evolution.

  To the extent that it’s “dogmatic” to continually test a theory for nigh 100 years…

• 118 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:39 am

  If you are studying physics, you don’t need to know jack about evolution.

  Natural selection does not increase the gene pool…it decreases it. Natural selection can only perserve or eliminat traits that already exists in a species. It’s just not logical to argue it’s a mechanism of cross species evolution.

• 119 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:46 am

  The only reason anybody would need to know anything about evolution is if they want to teach a high school class and preach evolution the kiddies.

• 120 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:06 pm

  sinz54 // Oct 19, 2009 at 10:48 am

  ottovbs:

  since when has proper diet and “nutrition” been a “pseudo science”

  “Gee, as an old-timer like me, I thought you would have remembered.”

  …….I suppose you could make the case that 18th century Royal Navy captains giving their crew lemons was pseudo science once, or how about Galileo’s atronomical discoveries, but nutritional theory has been a fairly fully formed science since at least the late 19th century…….I’ve got a medical text book from around 1905 in my library and it’s full of nutritional guidance for doctors…..and what about all that horrible cod liver oil based stuff my mother used to make me take as a kid……or my grandma in the fifties being given cod liver oil capsules because she had some kind of heart condition…….In modern times nutrition has never been a pseudo science……they may from time to time of added new natural based products to the list of things that are good for you (red wine) but that’s a far cry from saying diet/nutritional theory was a pseudo science.

• 121 Oneon1isto // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:12 pm

  In #120, CI, it sounds like you are arguing that natural selection (read: evolution) does belong in biology and genetics, and in fact it has a limiting effect on the gene pool. Aha! I got you!

  Evolution is only scary-scary if you equate it with atheist rhetoric–and it has been unfairly hitched to this. Evolution, natural selection, and biology do not address God in any way, shape, or form–*nor do they seek to.* The theory of evolution does not come with an “anti-God” clause in any textbook, so there’s no need to worry. Unless you’re afraid of questions contrary to God. In that case I would say you are weak of faith, and have bigger issues to address between you and your God.

  Clearly from your response in 120 you believe natural selection plays a role in biology. Somewhere along the line we started to equate “evolution” with “atheism”–I’d blame Dawkins et al for that. But like I said above, the two are not related.

• 122 Cforchange // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  reason60 & #16 “These races are a perfect example of how fractured Republicanism is.”

  Really true, these election formats will continue until one of the factions moves forward with a strong majority of an agreeable strain Republican voters. This will not be an overnight transition and there will be significant realignment of current membership.

  Even just reading the 100+ remarks here, there are some who venture into areas where I will no longer compromise. In the past, I had tolerated candidates that were not in perfect alignment with my views but around 2000 I started to stay home when I found the candidate didn’t represent me. (Good bye Santorum)

  These messy races are good and will determine how the GOP will go forward. Quickly we will determine what intolerance to each other has cost the party – there could be no faster path to paring the platform of it’s divisive issues. What really may make this happen is that the GOP may have a difficult time getting good candidates to sign up for the” waste o time” campaign drill.

  Most likely the most reasonable humans in the party will prevail. Plus I think the next leader will come out of a taxed environment meaning one that has already survived during the leanest of times. That will be the magic, a charasmatic budget genius who can pleasantly lead us through the long term austere times. Shrillness will not be victorious.

  Otto & Sinz good luck there, of course you’re right but I’m so bored with the topics that should have never entered the dicussion at large in the first place.

• 123 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  conservative-intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:46 am

  “The only reason anybody would need to know anything about evolution is if they want to teach a high school class and preach evolution the kiddies.”

  ……..Sure doctors, biologists, veterinarians, to name but a few would have no need for such knowledge……as long as the strain of intellectualism personified by conservative-intellectual remains the dominant mindset amongst American conservatives and Obama is faced by intellectual giants like Michael Steele, Sarah Palin and John Boehner…….I don’t think he’s got too much to worry about……do you?

• 124 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:22 pm

  Cforchange // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  ………See my comment 107 on the subject of the dissolution of the Republican coalition.

  ………And yes ID is a boring topic but an awfully interesting window(funny and appalling at the same time) into the outlook of sizeable segment of the GOP.

• 125 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  escapevelocity // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:36 am

  It reminds me of the Lefts interference in Meteorology, Planetary Geology, and Climatology to justify Obama regime’s energy policies.

  Thanks but no thanks.”

  …….I thought all the interference in science was coming from the Bush regime……Republican political appointees re writing or suppressing scientific reports at NASA, FDA, Dept Interior, etc……..Republicans resigning all over the place when inspectors general published their reports…..you should get out more and learn what’s going on in America instead today instead playing all this Stalin stuff from 75 years ago……..we know he was a bad guy but he has nothing to do with the here and now in our country.

• 126 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  Anybody that thinks Obama is an intellectual giant is on crack. The man sat in Jeramiah Wright’s church for 20 years, and he can’t speak without a Teleprompter telling him what to say.

• 127 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  I never said that evolution is anti-God, but I did imply that most Darwinists are militant atheists who are clutching to the evolution theory because they do think it denies the existence of a god. You can deny that all you want, but you guys dont’ get all jacked up over this issue if it’s not a case of identity politics.

• 128 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:57 pm

  If you don’t think there are huge holes in the evolution theory, you are not thinking too hard about it. A critical thinker pokes holes in far fetched theories that have never been proven.

• 129 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:59 pm

  conservative-intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  ……..Q.E.D.

• 130 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  I don’t know what Q.E.D, but then again, I’m not a Al Sharpton supporter.

• 131 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:09 pm

  I think the amusing thing about liberals it they think the evolution issue is an issue that decides elections. I tend to think most Americans are more interested in the economy and taxes and foreign policy and energy policy, none of which Democrats are on the right side.

• 132 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:19 pm

  133 conservative-intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  ” I don’t know what Q.E.D,but then again, I’m not a Al Sharpton supporter”

  Quod Erat Demonstrandum (which was to be demonstrated)

  ……..Al probably doesn’t know what it means either so you’re in good company

• 133 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:20 pm

  Al’s your leader. You got to own his dumbass.

• 134 Cforchange // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:22 pm

  Otto – you can take on “ID” argument with this “segment”. It just proves my point that these types of issues just should not enter the political discussion – you just can’t get agreement on nebulous topics like morality and religion. It’s only good for an argument.

  The moral agenda was a very costly and stupid exercise for the GOP. Look at the humilation fallout: Ensign, Sanford, Foley and what is the California lawmakers name – you know the spanker…. These “family guys” have made me long for just an ethical business person to take charge.

  Obviously, too many candidates were selected merely on their appearance of morality instead of their skill for governing. I really don’t care what any law abiding citizen does in their off hours but I do care that after elected they do what it takes to professionaly manage government ethically and effectively. That’s the job we have hired them to do – confusing it with a ministry is ridiculous.

  Otto – the faction of the party that demands a back to basics agenda will be the leadership. Geography and income aside, framing life by the appearance of morality does not move the realist majority who have definately ditched the GOP throughout the US. Limiting the agenda would broaden the candidate base too.

  Realism will be on the rise because “spiritual” advisement is something that must be paid for. As household budgets become tighter – individuals will drop the evangalizing activities and will return to the privacy of making decisions for themselves and quietly enjoying their own religion as most of us already do.

• 135 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:25 pm

  If I’m not mistaken, Foley was pro abortion and pro gay marriage. Hardly a social conservative.

  Sanford was always more of a liberterian than a conservative.

  I love these bigoted attacked that leftwing militant atheists lodge at Christians. You don’t enjoy your atheism quietly….you want to shove it down everybody elses throat. I don’t see Christians don’t that.

• 136 Moderate // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:37 pm

  My spirits have been buoyed that the sane voices are prevailing in this thread.

  I don’t know what Q.E.D, but then again, I’m not a Al Sharpton supporter.

  Quote of the year material.

• 137 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  I don’t know Latin or acronyms for Latin phrases. I don’t apologize for that, and I don’t know how that Q.E.D relates to anything that I was discussing here. Your liberal buddy never elaborated, and I’m not a mind reader.

• 138 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:45 pm

  Although to be fair, I can understand why some might think that I can read minds. Afterall, I am a conservative intellectual.

• 139 Moderate // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm

  It’s not important that you didn’t know what Q.E.D. means. Most people probably don’t. What’s funny is that you assumed the acronym was related to Al Sharpton (black people), like some cousin of N.W.A.

• 140 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:13 pm

  conservative-intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  I don’t know Latin or acronyms for Latin phrases. I don’t apologize for that, and I don’t know how that Q.E.D relates to anything that I was discussing here. Your liberal buddy never elaborated, and I’m not a mind reader.

  …….Given your obvious disdain for science, empirical evidence, and even human curiosity, not to mention the cursory aquaintance with reality, the world can only hope and pray that your career choices revolve around engineering hair dryers and not aeroplanes.

• 141 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  “It’s not important that you didn’t know what Q.E.D. means. Most people probably don’t. What’s funny is that you assumed the acronym was related to Al Sharpton (black people), like some cousin of N.W.A”

  That’s not what my point was. My point was that you guys are Al Sharpton supporters.

• 142 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:27 pm

  “.Given your obvious disdain for science, empirical evidence, and even human curiosity, not to mention the cursory aquaintance with reality, the world can only hope and pray that your career choices revolve around engineering hair dryers and not aeroplanes”

  My disdain for science did not prevent me from obtaining a degree in mechanical engineering at Clemson University, a top 25 public university well known for it’s engineering program.

  One does not have to subscribe to leftwing orthodoxy on global warming and evolution to be a Man of Science. Most leftwinger major in cake majors like political science, and then they want to lecture people far more accomplished than them on matters of science?

• 143 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:56 pm

  conservative-intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  “That’s not what my point was. My point was that you guys are Al Sharpton supporters.”

  ……..Do you have any evidence for that assertion or is it just that….a rather silly assertion

  “Most leftwinger major in cake majors like political science,”

  ………One wonders why Silicon valley and Seattle are so solidly liberal……. and evolution is not “left wing orthodoxy”…….it has nothing to do with politics…….it’s a proven scientific theorem that undergirds the entire practice of modern biology, bio chemistry and medicine………I’ve spent most of my working life around engineers in the oil and manufacturing business and one occasionally came across one with an overly rigid mindset like yours…..they usually ended up getting fired!

• 144 Cforchange // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:59 pm

  intellectual “you want to shove it down everybody elses throat” – no not at all. “It” simply needs eliminated from the political discussion. This will be the winning majority because after a few cycles – the fiscal minded population will tire of the inability to win or to control the purse strings.

  I am suspecting of this new contibutor – language is verbatim to the Escaper – are they the same contributor? Doesn’t add up, Clemsom, intellectual, arguing about the obvious, fitting the GOP sterotype to a “T”, jumping at the hint of heresy. Troll’s maybe? I would think the real opposition would like to stop any progress that the the GOP would make towards clairty- especially at identifying the items that really make the party flawed. Goal accomplished: preventing 25 sane Republicans to agree…. ever…

• 145 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 3:05 pm

  We have freedom of speech and you are telling us what a topic of debate should be “eliminated from discussion”. You live in the wrong country, guy.

  You are a blowhard.

  Otto displays a Michael Moore hatred of capitalism and oil companies…this notion that that you can get fired for supporting the global warming bandwagon is absurd. I think it’s quite the opposite these days as most companies are parroting the “green” line.

  I never see any liberals criticize Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. CNN and MSBC prop those guys up.

• 146 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  conservative-intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 3:05 pm

  “Otto displays a Michael Moore hatred of capitalism and oil companies…”

  ……..I guess that’s why I spent my entire career in oil and manufacturing businesses and ended up in some senior exec positions…….and work on the comprehension btw……you can get fired for over rigidity of mind…….nothing to do with global warming……..and both Revs are rabble rousing scumbags who use the race card to create dissent and enrich themselves……..Grow up and stop being so overly rigid and one dimensional……..it’s funny to many of us I’ll admit but makes you look grotesquely obtuse.

• 147 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  You aren’t in the oil industry in any engineering or managerial role. You have blue collar politics that just doesn’t jive with that assertion.

• 148 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 4:32 pm

  conservative-intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  “You have blue collar politics that just doesn’t jive with that assertion.”

  ……..I guess that would explain why a load of very wealthy and accomplished people from Warren Buffett to Barbra Streisand have “blue collar” politics……QED…….you’re sure as hell giving us a feast of Demonstrandum today

• 149 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 4:38 pm

  Warren Buffet has criticized Obama’s policies despite professing his love and support of the man.

  Let’s face it, guy. Democrats are the party of the poor….they claim this, and if we agree that most poor people are ignorant fools, we must also agree that Democrats are largely the party of the ignorant. Just because you got some rich lawyers and hollywood bimbos on board does not refute the fact that Democratic politics is blue collar in nature, with it’s class warfare and envy rhetoric…rich man exploiting the “little guy” rhetoric, oil companies are the devil rhetoric, etc.

• 150 steelyblades // Oct 19, 2009 at 4:45 pm

  …if we agree that most poor people are ignorant fools, we must also agree that Democrats are largely the party of the ignorant.

  This from a guy who just spent half a dozen posts defending Intelligent Design?

• 151 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 4:55 pm

  conservative-intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 4:38 pm

  “Let’s face it, guy. Democrats are the party of the poor….they claim this, and if we agree that most poor people are ignorant fools, we must also agree that Democrats are largely the party of the ignorant. Just because you got some rich lawyers and hollywood bimbos on board does not refute the fact that Democratic politics is blue collar in nature’

  …….For someone who is presumably numerate since you have a engineering degrees you are staggeringly innumerate (or at least unaware or in denial) when it comes to electoral stats……….for your info in the last election Obama won a majority of college grads, a majority of those earning over 150k a year and a majority of the suburbs where most of the middle and upper middle class in the country live……the Republicans won a majority of blue collar males and those with education only up to high school diploma who could perhaps be more accurately termed the ignorant (not that this is always true of course)…….Since you’ve spent much of the day here applauding ignorance which is essentially Republican standard operating practice these days there may be a connection.

• 152 Cforchange // Oct 19, 2009 at 5:08 pm

  CI, certainly we have free speech but loose lips sink ships. If you want to blat things that not everyone agrees with – that explains the current plight of the GOP: a minority incapable of winning elections.

  The “base” of the GOP has determined itself to be superior party members, in fact candidates must appeal to all their needs in order to represent the entire party. As we’ve experienced, we lose elections or must tolerate inept choices that have been made all because some if not the best candidates are precluded from representing the GOP. Example, Christie Whitman.

  I can take no credit for the current state of the GOP because since 2000, I really have been at odds with the party. But you the Intellectual on the other hand are exactly how the party is decribed over and over in the media. As such you should be very involved in finding new members that support your GOP brand. The pressure rests squarely on the shoulders of you and your cohorts to find members in strick agreement with you, similar to what you’ve all asked of existing GOP members. But if you are not successful as GOP recruiters I believe that will be the best definition of a blowhard; Talk with lacking results.

  Certainly as 2008 revealed, the “base” is the most predominant segment of the GOP so the pressure for success is really on – it’s on folks like you CI. You’re in agreement with the current game plan so you don’t need to be convincing me – you need to be recruiting new members who agree with you. But yet you waste your time here with me a site looking for a new majority, a group looking for a new approach to candidates and elections for the GOP.

  Get busy CI, the GOP future is in your hands. But one could only think – only for a few more cycles, that is unless you are more than talk. Then you can just forget about all the disenchanted over hear at the NM and leave us whining in your dust.

• 153 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 5:22 pm

  Cforchange // Oct 19, 2009 at 5:08 pm

  ……CI is an exact representative of the attitudes that are catalogued by that Dem Corps report that is doing the rounds which is why there is no question about it’s authenticity……..his intellectual myopia and total lack of self awareness is literally so mind boggling that one wonders if he is a product of home schooling by fundamentalists…….either way the GOP is currently in thrall to folks like this and is so totally f***** for a generation it’s hard know how they find a way out

• 154 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 6:29 pm

  I happily concede that we intellectuals are a minority….smart people always are a minority. America’s had a good run but the history of the world is tryanny, torture, genocide, etc and the Left in America is taking us down the road to serfdom.

  Mr. Limbaugh likes to say that people are capable of taking care of themselves. The older that I get, the harder it is for me to believe this. Intellectuals like me are surrounded by people that are little more than dumb animals. I will never understand how anybody with any basic understanding of economics could vote for Obama.

• 155 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 6:29 pm

  I happily concede that we intellectuals are a minority….smart people always are a minority. America’s had a good run but the history of the world is tryanny, torture, genocide, etc and the Left in America is taking us down the road to serfdom.

  Mr. Limbaugh likes to say that people are capable of taking care of themselves. The older that I get, the harder it is for me to believe this. Intellectuals like me are surrounded by people that are little more than dumb animals. I will never understand how anybody with any basic understanding of economics could vote for Obama.

• 156 ottovbvs // Oct 19, 2009 at 6:50 pm

  conservative-intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 6:29 pm

  “I happily concede that we intellectuals are a minority….smart people always are a minority. America’s had a good run but the history of the world is tryanny, torture, genocide, etc and the Left in America is taking us down the road to serfdom……Mr. Limbaugh likes to say that people are capable of taking care of themselves. The older that I get, the harder it is for me to believe this. Intellectuals like me are surrounded by people that are little more than dumb animals. I will never understand how anybody with any basic understanding of economics could vote for Obama.”

  ……..Ok conservative-intellectual you admitted you didn’t know what QED meant and even more funnily believed it had no relevance to you…….how about Oxymoron……know what that means?…….or are you as I suspected all along…… a joker

• 157 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 6:53 pm

  Obama’s the Joker, guy…..I’m not on any poster…he is.

  I don’t know Latin, and I have never seen QED. I dont’ admit to knowing everything, just the things that matter. Latin is a dead language.

• 158 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 6:53 pm

  Obama’s the Joker, guy…..I’m not on any poster…he is.

  I don’t know Latin, and I have never seen QED. I dont’ admit to knowing everything, just the things that matter. Latin is a dead language.

• 159 anniemargret // Oct 19, 2009 at 10:15 pm

  CI: “….poor people are ignorant fools…”

  The most disgusting thing I’ve read on this blog yet. Shame.

  If you have the capacity…

• 160 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 10:20 pm

  Poor people are mostly ignorant people. I don’t see how you can deny that.

• 161 anniemargret // Oct 19, 2009 at 10:49 pm

  Typical right wing slander…. poor people are poor because they want to poor, right? Typical El Rushbo smear.

  Read “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell.

• 162 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 10:53 pm

  Typical right wing slander…. poor people are poor because they want to poor, right? Typical El Rushbo smear

  It’s laughable that a leftwinger would accusing Rush of smears after they spent the last week making up quotes about slavery that he never said.

• 163 KL7212 // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:42 pm

  >The “base” of the GOP has determined itself to be superior party members, in fact candidates must appeal to all their needs in order to represent the entire party. As we’ve experienced, we lose elections or must tolerate inept choices that have been made all because some if not the best candidates are precluded from representing the GOP.

  A good example of this kind of thinking is the so-called Club For Growth. The only thing these knuckleheads are growing is the number of Democrats in the Legislative Branch. Doctrinaire conservative nitwits in the CFG have decimated the ranks of moderate Republicans in the Northeast over the last decade. We need only look to what happened in Maryland Congressional District 1 last year.

  For nearly 20 years, Congressman Wayne Gilchrist, a decorated Vietnam veteran and a moderate Republican, who voted the “conservative” line in Congress 60-70% of the time, was targeted by the CFG in 2008 Republican Primary and was defeated by a Club backed true believer, Andy Harris.

  Harris, an inept yo-yo, managed to lose a close election to Democrat Frank Kratovil in a district which John McCain won by double digits.

  What was the problem?

  Although, Maryland 1 is one of the most Republican districts in the Northeast, Harris LOST THE RACE and put a district which Rep. Gilchrist had won by a 2-to-1 margin in 2006, a huge Democratic year, into Democratic hands.

  Why did Harris lose? Well, apart from being a jackass, he lost because HE WAS TOO CONSERVATIVE for the Northeastern district which Gilchrist had capably and competently served for 8 terms.

  Don’t you guys get it? Once Republican seats like New York Congressional District 23 are gone, THEY’RE GONE FOR GOOD. The Congressional Delegation of New York, a state which once produced Republican stalwarts like Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Dewey, is now almost entirely Democratic. It’s only a matter of time before the Democrats control every single Congressional seat in the Empire State.

• 164 KL7212 // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:49 pm

  Bottom line: Half a loaf (or two-thirds of one for the that matter) is better than no loaf at all.

  Conservative Republicans don’t win in the Northeast because they’re out of step with the population in the region.

  The contemporary Republican Party has morphed into a mirror image of the 1980’s Democrats.

• 165 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:44 am

  Oneon1isto:
  

  It’s come a long way, and now works to determine a more whole index of the body so that the nutritionist can make the proper “prescription”.

  Yep.

  I have kidney disease. Nutritional therapy is now considered a standard part of the treatment for kidney disease. And my nutritionist has prescribed specific nutrients to treat specific aspects of my kidney disease: Fish oil, L-carnitine, selenium, calcium, and N-acetylcysteine, are what I take routinely. (You can google for those to see just why they’re important for kidney disease.) My nephrologist knows all about this–and he thoroughly approves.

• 166 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:49 am

  KL7212:
  

  For nearly 20 years, Congressman Wayne Gilchrist, a decorated Vietnam veteran and a moderate Republican, who voted the “conservative” line in Congress 60-70% of the time, was targeted by the CFG in 2008 Republican Primary and was defeated by a Club backed true believer, Andy Harris.

  Right now, over on Redstate.com, they are saying that they would actually prefer to see the Dem, Owens, win in NY-23 rather than allow a moderate Repub, Dede Scozzafava, win the seat. They say that having moderate Republicans would “muddy” the GOP message.

  I remember how hard Jacob Javits, a liberal Republican senator from NY (yes, the GOP used to have some actual liberals) worked to support Ronald Reagan for President in 1980. Back then, Reagan’s supporters never accused Javits of “muddying” their message.

  In a two-party system, ideological purity is the road to being a minority party. Because all those who don’t agree with the purist stance will go to the other party.

• 167 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:02 am

  conservative-intellectual:
  

  if we agree that most poor people are ignorant fools, we must also agree that Democrats are largely the party of the ignorant. Just because you got some rich lawyers and hollywood bimbos on board

  I don’t agree with any of this.

  First, ignorance is hardly limited to the poor. Much of the GOP base is middle class, but their ignorance of science and modern economics is stunning.

  Secondly, in 2008, most of Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs backed Obama enthusiastically. The CEO of Google, for example.

  Finally, exit polls showed that Obama won the votes of voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points over McCain.

• 168 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:15 am

  conservative-intellectual:
  

  Intellectuals like me are surrounded by people that are little more than dumb animals.

  Gee, and all this time conservatives have been claiming that the Obama administration is elitist. What you wrote there is far more elitist than Obama’s infamous “clinging to guns” gaffe.

  conservative-intellectual:
  

  I will never understand how anybody with any basic understanding of economics could vote for Obama.

  I didn’t vote for him, but I can give you a plausible argument:

  We have a two party system. We had just two candidates to choose from: Obama and McCain.

  And McCain admitted to his ignorance of economics.

  In September 2008, the U.S. economy had fallen off a cliff. This happened just a few months after the GOP primaries, in which all the major GOP candidates including McCain (except Paul and Huckabee) had said that the U.S. economy was in good shape.

  When the U.S. economy turned down, McCain’s own economics adviser, Phil Gramm, said that the fundamentals remained strong and that all we had was a “mental recession.” We found out later that Gramm, when he was Senator, had been instrumental in deregulating derivatives, which contributed to the 2008 economic debacle.

  When the economy fell off a cliff, McCain suspended his campaign and flew back to Washington, where he accomplished virtually nothing–after which he resumed his campaign.

  During the debates with Obama, all McCain could talk about was earmarks. Which all Americans knew had virtually nothing to do with why the U.S. economy was on the verge of collapse.

  All that virtually DISQUALIFIED McCain from leading the nation out of the worst economic crisis in 30 years. That left us with only one other viable choice.

  BTW, as the result of Gramm’s “mental recession,” Warren Buffett, who is one of the world’s sharpest and cautious investors, lost 50% of his own net worth.

  I didn’t vote for Obama, because I didn’t see him as a war President. And we were at war. And that consideration superseded all else for me. But I had no illusions about McCain’s ability to manage the U.S. economy. I could only hope he would get good advisers, maybe Romney, to do the job.

• 169 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:20 am

  I don’t see how you can argue the conservative base is ignorant of economics.

  It’s you leftwingers that think out of control spending, high taxation, price caps, waging the min. wage, are all good ideas…..this is a gross ignorance of economics.

  Having a postgraduate degree means nothing….I’d like to see what these Obama supporters received there postgraduate degrees in….what you major in matters more to me than the level of the degree. A postgraduate degree in some bullshit major like poli sci is not impressive.

  The Democratic party is largely the party of the super rich and the super poor. The poor are largely ignorant or they would not be poor….and the rich Democrats just feel guilty about their wealth so they champion the “little guy” rhetoric. The rich Democrats don’t care about high income taxation because they already have their wealth….if we were to start taxing wealth, Democrats would become conservatives in a skinny minute.

• 170 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:23 am

  I never said McCain was some genius. I don’t think he believes in much of anything…he just wanted to be president. Obama is a leftist idealogue and by defaut he is either ignorant of economics, or he’s willing to just disregard economics because it doesn’t jive with his Marxist ideals.

  Anybody that thinks Obama was qualified to be president is admitting they are a fool. The man had done nothing in his life. He gets a degree in law but rather than practice law he goes community organize.

• 171 Joe In NH // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:04 pm

  Regarding the question of economics- can someone explain to me the difference between Democrats spending more to prime the pump etc. and Bush cutting taxes but not spending. The result is the same which is to say big deficits. Maybe Bush #2 was a Keynesian? It’s hard to see a difference in the final result.

  Also, regarding Obama’s history- community organizer then law school then a law firm before going into politics.

You must log in to post a comment.