My takeaways from the Washington Post survey this morning of Republican opinion:
1) Republican political leaders have very little room to maneuver. With 46% of Republicans and Republican-leaners declaring themselves “angry” at the Obama administration – and 77% refusing any compromise on healthcare – it’s unsurprising that Republican leaders do not dare to negotiate a better deal.
2) Had Congressional Republicans tried to exercise more far-seeing leadership, they would almost certainly have failed to carry their supporters with them. Rank-and-file Republicans feel little confidence in their supposed leaders. While 56% of Republicans and Republican-leaners credit the party with sharing “some” of their values, only 37% say that their party leadership shares “most” of their values. Only 55% think their leaders in Congress understand the problems of people like themselves.
3) Republicans disdain President Obama as culturally alien. 61% “strongly” feel that he does not stand for traditional American values, another 13% “somewhat” feel so.
4) Yet one has to wonder: how much of the anger felt by Republicans is explained by things Obama has actually done – and how much by the generally miserable situation of the country. Republicans have 401Ks too. Only 1% of Republicans name George W. Bush as the person who epitomizes Republican values, and 24% blame him greatly or somewhat for the problems of the country today.
For all the anger felt by Republicans, they are not a very radical group of people. They divide 50-50 on whether they wish to see religion exercise more influence in American life than it does today. Only one-fifth of Republicans think abortion should be illegal in all cases. The party still holds a substantial pro-choice minority: 35% think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Half of the Republicans and Republican leaners surveyed said they “never” listen to Rush Limbaugh – more than say they never listen to MSNBC.
61 responses so far
1 DFL // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I think some of what this Republican anger is about concerns out of touch, arrogant leaders who seem to not care what the average Republican voter thinks. Witness Lindsey Graham and John McCain on immigration. Perhaps if Graham, McCain, McConnell, Boehner and the rest took question and answers from Republican voters, they might be able to understand the anger. Part of being a good leader is to understand what’s on the minds of the people they are leading.
2 BarryS // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“Republicans disdain President Obama as culturally alien. 61% “strongly” feel that he does not stand for traditional American values, another 13% “somewhat” feel so.”
No surprise there.
Day after day they are told he is a Socialist/Marxist/Hitler clone who wants to kill granny and put their kids in a concentration camp.
The moral bankruptcy of the far right is astonishing.
3 Carney // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:04 pm
BarryS, is it your contention that Barack Obama does stand for traditional American values? Please skip the liberal laundry list in your response.
4 cpanza // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:10 pm
“Republicans disdain President Obama as culturally alien. 61% “strongly” feel that he does not stand for traditional American values, another 13% “somewhat” feel so.”
I’m outraged! Outraged, I say!
I was no fan of George Bush, nor am I particularly much of a fan of the right. That said, I don’t think of them as “foreign” to American values. I see them as expressing a side of American values, or perhaps expressing a side in too extreme a sense. I never think of them as antithetical to what American values are. American values are complicated and complex.
As a consequence, I can’t lie: I find it dismaying that the right cannot think the same way in reverse. I don’t mind 61% of Republicans not wanting to endorse the particular values of the left, or the way in which certain values are seen as more important than others. But to see them as foreign to what America is? Meh. For 50% of the population to think that the other 50% are not “real Americans” in the sense of holding foreign values is beyond the pale.
We can disagree without being stupid.
5 BarryS // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Carney, YES.
He is a great family man with good American values. He is bringing up his children in a good way. He has demonstrated more “family values” in a short time than the Vitters, Palins and Sandfords of this world will do in a lifetime.
6 Independent // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:08 pm
it’s fun to see all the democrats here give their spin on an article by mr frum that seems more intent on disparaging republicans than adding any light to the wa-po “survey”
for instance, mr frum, angry voters doesn’t necessarily translate into radical voters… unless you’re still stuck in your mom & dad’s vw van with all those black light posters demanding an end to the war in vietnam. it seems you think it ought to and find it surprising it doesn’t for people who really are the vast majority of main street america. obama isn’t main street in any sense; he’s an elite liberal on the far left. there’s nothing normal, average or main street in his or michele’s values… that’s why they are alien to many republicans and, now it appears, most independents too.
a little more light, mr frum. like maybe the republican leaders in congress don’t think the democrat version of socialized health care can be fixed or compromised into something useful? all i’ve heard from the republican talking heads is “we need to start over”, not we need to compromise with an unwilling set of democrat partisans in congress hell bent on taking over a large segment of the economy
it’s unfortunate that the democrats have taken an important issue like containing the cost of health care and turned it into more”red meat for the base” moment –when this started, we were talking about containing the rise in the cost of health care, making access more equitable, addressing the adverse cost-shifts created by chronic govt underfunding and fixing the upward spiral of health insurance premiums
now, it seems, it’s all about the democrats getting a win –and if that means anything with the name “health care reform” in the title, so be it. i wonder if there’s money in it for acorn?
7 sinz54 // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:11 pm
He is alien–to them.
Obama is a cosmopolitan urbanite.
Whereas the heart of the GOP base is the rural areas of the South and Mountain States. Doesn’t Sarah Palin always get cheers from the base when she extols the virtues of small-town America, calling small towns “the real America”?
It’s not entirely personal. To the GOP base, large cosmopolitan cities such as Chicago, New York, Boston, and L.A. are alien territory, with values and philosophies that are at variance with their own.
8 BarryS // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“i wonder if there’s money in it for acorn?”
Oh Noz it’s the Acornz. death panel scary stuff.
Of course all those righty Pols like McCain, Romney, Bush,Cheny, Sanford, Vitter and on and on were true sons of the masses. NOT
9 sinz54 // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Independent:
What are you talking about???
For 70 years, the Holy Grail of liberal Democrats has been universal coverage. Not cost containment. They NEVER made a secret of that.
10 DFL // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Bill Bishop wrote an interesting book about the growing physical separation between what is roughly the Left and the Right in this country. I believe the book is called “The Big Sort”.
11 cpanza // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Sinz:
“Obama is a cosmopolitan urbanite. Whereas the heart of the GOP base is the rural areas of the South and Mountain States. Doesn’t Sarah Palin always get cheers from the base when she extols the virtues of small-town America, calling small towns “the real America”? It’s not entirely personal. To the GOP base, large cosmopolitan cities such as Chicago, New York, Boston, and L.A. are alien territory, with values and philosophies that are at variance with their own.”
That’s fine. I’m from NYC, but I live in a small town in the Midwest. I too see the people around me as alien in a way, because I’m not accustomed to their way of seeing things. At the same time, I don’t think of the way they see things as “not American”. I think that’s the issue here: I think many on the right see the left as not-American. Not just different, maybe even different in a way that you don’t want to emulate, but not-American. There’ s a difference.
Also:
“For 70 years, the Holy Grail of liberal Democrats has been universal coverage. Not cost containment. They NEVER made a secret of that.”
A few things:
1. It may well be that they are interconnected.
2. Whenever Democrats hint at (2) in ways that involve containment of _access to certain kinds of care_ — they are run out of town. Yet, as far as I can tell, that’s the one single most important way to contain costs. No one is really serious about cost containment on either side of the aisle.
12 joemarier // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Review of The Big Sort here: http://www.frumforum.com/the-big-sort
13 ottovbvs // Nov 30, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“Republicans have 401Ks too.”
……Well they aught to be fairly happy……given the market is up about 55% from it’s bottom
“Obama is a cosmopolitan urbanite.”
…..Given that about 70% of the country live in urban areas does this make him out of touch with modern America?
14 hormelmeatco // Nov 30, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“Given that about 70% of the country live in urban areas does this make him out of touch with modern America?”
Nope: http://www.slate.com/id/2201548/
15 LFC // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Thanks for that, hormelmeatco. I never remember seeing the figures, and thought the skew was closer to 2/3 metropolitan to 1/3 not. To see that the country is 80% metropolitan and less than 20% not is an eye opener.
But hey, that less than 20% is the “real” America.
16 MI-GOPer // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm
sinz54 pads the kneelers for the sinful Democrats: “What are you talking about???”
I think I might know… because it seems like in order to get this issue onto the national agenda, the Democrats first promised –and Obama Messiah led the charge– to “reform” health care because the ever rising costs of insurance, health care itself and other factors were a drag on the economy… to reform it, we would save the economy, save businesses, save taxpayers, cover everyone who doesn’t have it…. et cetera. Now, we’re told it won’t add to the deficit, it won’t cost more in taxes, it won’t lead to cuts in MediCare, it won’t lead to rationing… and the Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale. He lies!
In fact, in late July, Obama again linked the need for health care reform –and he added, cutting the high cost of insurance– was the next major issue after TARP, Stimulus Spending Spree, GM bailout and so forth.
By the way, even though the Democrats –and Michigan’s own liberal John Dingell– have been “talking” about it for 70 years, sinz54, doesn’t mean that they have some preordained right to shove a massively new domestic spending program down the throats of America… you’ve used the “70+ years” argument often here. In November, Americans were polled and said very clearly that health care reform was the last –dead last– issue that the incoming Obama Administration should address… the economy & jobs were #1. So much for the Democrats being able to talk an issue into prominence… 70 years and we’re probably going to watch this “reform” effort self-destruct within the Democrat Party.
17 PracticalGirl // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I think there is complete confusion even on the basics. Family values is a loud, angry cry of the right. But what are those “family values”, if the politicians can’t even keep their pants zipped and their families together? It says more about the emptiness of the current GOP’s positions that they would question the family values of a devoted father and husband than it does about Barack Obama.
I also think much of the anger of the base is the schizophrenic leadership of the right itself. On the one hand, the base is told-loudly and angrily- that the GOP stands for fiscal conservation (for example). On the other hand, the Republican party hasn’t practiced fiscal responsibility in over 3 decades, even when given the clear, unobstructed opportunity to do so. The GOP politicians and the conservative media screamers alike tell the base-loudly and angrily- that the party stands for moral and family values. And then proceed to offer counter example after counter example after counter example. The base is told-loudly and angrily- that the Jimmy Carter is to blame for the current mortgage crisis and-loudly and angrily- that the GOP knew all along that the FHA house of cards was weak and and falling, but then meekly turn away from their leadership and culpability in low down and zero down lending practices and the inability to push through meaningful reform when they had a chance. The base is told-LOUDLY and ANGRILY- that huge government stimulus is a socialist plot of the left, and then the politicians propose it and vote for it, anyway.
Conservatives are as savvy as anyone; they can see the jusxtaposition of what they politicians say they support and what they actually do. But when the only consistent message they get is LOUD and ANGRY, is it any wonder when that’s what the movement becomes?
18 MI-GOPer // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:28 pm
hormelmeatco processes and packs some rancid meat with this BigLie: ” 70% of the country live in urban areas”.
Wrong, braunschweiger breath.
The figure purports to widely redefine “metropolitan” area to include areas adjacent to urban areas that are best described as suburban –and almost anti-urban for some who live there to “escape” the concrete jungles of true urban areas. Most people in America are not urban unless we jump to the unsupportable position that anyone who lives in a metro area is “urban”. Inner city, mostly democrat stronghold, rotting neighborhoods are the real urban.
When former Gov Palin was speaking about bringing some common sense to DC, she was speaking about core GOP values of fiscal prudence and common sense… two values that have NEVER been associated with democrats, Democrat Party or Obama. You may want to spin the facts about what is true urban and not –because it helps you live with the truth that urbanites are not the majority in America– true urbanites are generally under-educated, poor, black, crime-prone and crime-practicing, illiterate folks breeding and feeding at the govt trough.
You may need to project them as DINKs or uppies or cultural effettes… but when most Americans talk about urban types we think of two, diverse groups: black youth selling crack or Bernie Madoff types attending yet another Democrat fundraiser while tsk-ing all the homeless they have to pass on the way to the symphony or gallery.
Se why DC needs more common sense from Wasilla main street? I thought you would.
Hey, is BarryS the old Balconesfault?
19 LFC // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:34 pm
PracticalGirl… It’s simply a case of not having their team winning. What do childish sports nuts do? (No, I’m not talking about the majority of fans who simply get into a game.) They scream at the TV, whine about how unfair the refs are, how dirty the other team is, and how they missed all the breaks. If they’re at a game, they might be throwing beers.
So they angry. REALLY angry. There are few that can articulate what exactly they are angry about, and even fewer who can provide factual examples of what caused their anger, but they complained very little about the utter incompetence and immoral behavior when “their side” was in charge. It’s IOKYAR (It’s OK if You’re A Republican). Think about it. If Michelle Obama had been a drug addict who used her own charity to illegally score prescriptions, can you imagine the outrage?
It’s sad, but I imagine every country has some segment of the population like this.
20 ottovbvs // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:42 pm
MI-GOPer // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:28 pm
” 70% of the country live in urban areas”.
……Actually it was myself that said it…..he just agreed with me and suggested I might have actually understated it.
“The figure purports to widely redefine “metropolitan” area to include areas adjacent to urban areas that are best described as suburban”
…….I know you’re pretty dim mi goper but suburban areas are “urban” as distinct from rural
21 sinz54 // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:42 pm
ottovbs:
The current demographic breakdown is more like:
40% urban (central city)
30% suburban
20% rural
http://tinyurl.com/38vloj
At least, that’s how I interpret this data from the Census.
Also, the demographic center of gravity of the U.S. continues to tip away from Obama’s Rust Belt. The most populous states of the nation are now California and Texas; when you were a kid, New York State was the most populous state in the nation.
22 sinz54 // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:47 pm
ottovbs:
Suburban areas don’t always vote like urban areas.
The affluent suburbs used to be fairly Republican (that’s MODERATE Republican), while the more diverse and poorer cities remained Democratic. It wasn’t till the 1990s that Bill Clinton found a way to appeal to suburbanites, with a formula of fiscal responsibility and social libertarianism. And Bush accelerated the process by chasing away suburban moderates, who voted heavily for Obama.
In 2010, the GOP has a decent chance to win back suburbs. But just as in past years, the inner cities are strong Dem territory.
23 ottovbvs // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:48 pm
…..definition of “urban” ……what do you think “urban sprawl” is?…..what do you think a conurbation is?
“An urban area is characterized by higher population density and vast human features in comparison to areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets.
Urban areas are created and further developed by the process of urbanization. Measuring the extent of an urban area helps in analyzing population density and urban sprawl, and in determining urban and rural populations (Cubillas 2007).
Unlike an urban area, a metropolitan area includes not only the urban area, but also satellite cities plus intervening rural land that is socio-economically connected to the urban core city, typically by employment ties through commuting, with the urban core city being the primary labor market. In fact, urbanized areas agglomerate and grow as the core population/economic activity center within a larger metropolitan area or envelope.”
24 sinz54 // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:55 pm
MI-GOPer:
In that they were correct: The soaring costs of health care really ARE a drag on the economy.
Unfortunately, Obama tossed the health care ball to Pelosi and Reid to come up with whatever health care plan(s) they could. The CBO estimate on the Senate plan, which was just released today, was that the Senate plan will do little to contain health care costs. Indeed, those who have group insurance through their employers may see a slight rise in their premiums.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/11/cbo_senate_health_plan_will_in.html
As for the benefits from the plan, they won’t really kick in till 2013. So we’ve got a plan whose costs are up front, but whose benefits are down the road. That’s not what Obama had originally wanted–and it’s not going to be popular with the voters in November 2010.
25 balconesfault // Nov 30, 2009 at 6:01 pm
40% urban (central city)
30% suburban
20% rural
That sounds about correct. Mind you, suburban includes a WIDE spectrum … everything from gated communities well outside the outskirts, to the miles and miles of boulevards sprawling in all directions from cities like Houston, lined with endless rows of big box stores and gas stations and strip malls and clogged with thick traffic that makes them almost as alien to your rural dweller as the corner of Madison and 45th.
Let’s just say you’re not going to find Opie riding his bicycle to pick up milk and eggs for mom at the HEBs on Westheimer.
I think that suburbs attract people fleeing the city, and wanting more land around them … but over time suburbs developed design ordinances and zoned to keep industrial facilities away from homeowners and realized that road infrastructure designed to maximize the flow of cars wasn’t really a great idea for their kids … and at the same time people elected to office in suburban towns started finding that poorly constructed tract housing developments didn’t hold value and ended up being blights that over time eroded their tax base, instead of contributing to it.
And the laisse faire rush to suburban sprawl of the 80’s and 90’s has increasingly been replaced by suburbanites who accept the idea that government IS the solution to certain problems. They don’t just want government to expand the highway out to their neighborhood and to build a big school for their kids … but increasingly they want government to build bikeways so their kids can ride their bike safely to said big school, or to soccer practice … for government to protect the water in the creek that runs through the neighborhood from the miles of development that now take place upstream from them, and to protect a greenbelt along the creek for all to enjoy.
And per polling, a lot of them would like the other kids in their kids school to have access to healthcare, as well as the waitress at Ruby Tuesdays or the butcher at Safeway.
26 anniemargret // Nov 30, 2009 at 6:16 pm
How insane is it when a supposedly national party such as the Republicans are now openly waging a civil war between the states?
How insane is it when their idolatrous leaders such as Palin, Beck, Limbaugh are now fomenting hate and prejudice and fear every time they open their mouths? They stand for disunity, they stand for division, they stand for fear. There is not a single Republican that stands for unification and strength for America. Not one.
They now despise anything that even hints as intellectualism. The more intellectual and educated you appear to be, the more you are marginalized. Went to MIT, Harvard, Boston U, Stanford, Penn State, CUNY? You’re OUT! They don’t want them…too, too….educated.
Their other silly mantra is Big City Bad, Small Town Good! “National Party?” Not anymore. They don’t want to be; this thread is just a glimpse of what is really going on in this ‘national party of Republicanism 2009.”
This is as stupid as it gets. Whatever little respect the GOP once had, is now completely gone due to their hate-mongerers and fear-mongerers in chiefs (P/B/L). These are their leaders, make no mistake.
They’re ‘outraged’ about deficits but didn’t say a word all through Bush’s deficits. He put two wars on a credit card and they were perfectly fine with it. They’ve now got lots of criticism for Obama about Afghanistan, but nary a word for 8 long years while Bush and Cheney diverted funds and resources to Iraq. They’re ‘outraged’ about healthcare costs now, but for 8 years they did absolutely nothing to address them. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Don’t care. Still don’t.
They ‘outraged’ over social programs, but just try prying those social security and Medicare cards from them. They won’t give them up. Or will they? Maybe that’s the ticket. Let’s ask them to give it up. After all, it’s pure Democratic ’socialism’ to have them.
They don’t want government in their lives but want Roe vs Wade revoked. They don’t want government in their lives, but Republicans ran to Congress to make sure Terry Schiavo was protected by ‘government.’ They don’t want government in their lives, but by golly, if they could make America fully ‘Christian’ they will do so. You betcha.
Hypocrites.
27 BarryS // Nov 30, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Go Annie, seconded. The truth hurts so don’t expect anything buy either silence or the usual MI (ndless) GOPer hate.
28 ottovbvs // Nov 30, 2009 at 7:05 pm
balconesfault // Nov 30, 2009 at 6:01 pm
40% urban (central city)
30% suburban
20% rural
…….the math here doesn’t add up….where do the other 36 million people live?…………..and suburban areas are urban by definition because they contain large concentrations of population…..greater LA contains more population than the city of LA(as do the burbs of many American cities) but does anyone really think the valley or Pasadena for example are not urban……for the past 20 years the rule of thumb has been that 70-75% of Americans live in what what could be defined as an urban area…..only mi-goper would think Pasadena CA, Norcross GA or McClean VA was non urban………does he believe in gravity one wonders
29 » This sums it up pretty well… strenturgent // Nov 30, 2009 at 7:42 pm
[...] it’s entirety, comment #26 from a post (”We’re Mad As Hell“) on David Frum’s [...]
30 hormelmeatco // Nov 30, 2009 at 7:52 pm
MI-GOPer: “she was speaking about core GOP values of fiscal prudence and common sense”
Just Medicare Part D alone proves you wrong. No wonder Michigan’s Republican party is AWOL and not even relevant.
Otto: The “nope” was in actually in answer to you asking if he was out of touch, though you are right: even 70% is understating how many people live in metro areas.
Sinz: “In 2010, the GOP has a decent chance to win back suburbs.”
No better than they had in 2008. As we’re getting closer and closer to November 2010, it looks like more and more of a repeat of 2006/2008, with maybe a few Republican pickups of seats. The overall composition of Congress probably won’t change.
31 sinz54 // Nov 30, 2009 at 8:06 pm
hormelmeatco:
In 2008, the Republicans were getting clobbered by Bush fatigue.
But by November 2010, Bush will have been out of office for 22 months; and Obama will be the new owner of the Afghanistan War.
Who’s most vulnerable? Incumbent Dems from Red districts, districts that Obama had trouble carrying in 2008.
Note also that according to the latest polls, Obama’s support among white Americans has collapsed, down to only 39% and likely to drop even further. And many of those Red districts are white areas. The Dems won’t be able to depend on a huge turnout of minorities to keep seats in Red districts.
32 Chekote // Nov 30, 2009 at 8:11 pm
annie
Gore has been fear mongering the environment and making himself a very rich man in the process. So fear mongering is not limited to Republicans. And let’s not forget that when the GOP tried to rein in the cost of Medicare and government programs like the school lunch program by reducing the rate of growth, the Dems accused them of throwing grandma out of the nursing home and starving children. What we need is for people to stand up and say this kind of political tactics are unacceptable period.
33 Chekote // Nov 30, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Couldn’t agree more. That is why the GOP needs to drop the SoCon agenda. It makes the party look hypocritical. It undercuts the basic limited government argument. And if it weren’t for the SoCons, Palin would still be an unknown governor in Alaska.
34 hormelmeatco // Nov 30, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Sinz: you’re too optimistic. Most of the red disticts you mention probably didn’t go for the Dems in 2008 anyway. Where does that leave the Republicans? With the same set of safe areas they had the last time, which wasn’t enough then, and probably won’t be enough the next time around. We’re also talking about congress, not the White House. Realistically, how many house and senate seats do you think the Republicans will pick up? What is so fundamentally different between now and 2008 and what will be
fundamentally different between now and 2010? People still aren’t taking what the GOP says seriously. Same as with the Democrats in 2004. Even 4 years into Bush’s first term wasn’t enough for the fatigue you mentioned to set in. And it’s supposed to set in only 2 years into Obama’s?
I’ll say the GOP will pick up 5-10 seats in districts that were squeakers in 2006 and 2008 and that’ll be it.
35 jtmccoy // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:06 pm
What the heck are “traditional American values” anyway???
36 rbottoms // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Seems like 99% of the anger comes from losing the election. They’ve been told for 30 years that conservatism was ascendant and that white Christian Amerca was the GOP’s to run into infinity.
They couldn’t possibly be wrong, they can’t possibly be the gay bashing, greedy, gun totin’ idiots the are sure the liberals think they are, so they are going to rev up the anger to 12 and if that doesn’t work they’ll try 13, 14, and 15.
Come summer they will bring out the guns and scream even louder to show the liberals who’s boss.
They are quite certain that this rage will bring the uncommitted and the swing voters over to their side in 2010 and sweep them to victory in 2012. The party of perpetual outrage will feed on itself until God knows what kind of explosion happens.
Two years from now which Obama still president, with no magical birth certificate to sweep him from office, they will a mob like you’ve not seen in modern times, and they we’ll really see the face on conservatism. Angry, mean, and out for revenge. That should make for a pretty amazing party at the next GOP convention.
37 jtmccoy // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Bigotry, outrage, ignorance – yes, I suppose those are traditional American values.
38 anniemargret // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:06 pm
chekote: The GOP must start to stand for something, not just be ‘outraged’ about everything. This president’s death threats have soared to over 400%, much more than any other president in contemporary times. This says something about our culture and what is happening to it. This is more than shameful, it’s dangerous.
The icecaps are shrinking, Chekote. Very obvious and it doesn’t need a scientist to put their imprimatur on those photos.
The hoaxers are despicable. Science is now on par with politics. Data being manipulated by scientists for political gain? Who’d have thunk it? But has all the peer reviewed data been completely debunked? Not.
But to throw out the National Academy of Sciences, the Nat’l Research Council, and American geologists papers, thousands of them written by scientists showing CO2 levels definitively affect climate, because we got a bunch of morons suppressing data, fudging facts, is simply wrong.
Let them retest the data, and throw the bums out. Let’s find out what it’s about, minus political instincts. Can it be done? I believe climate change is real. If it is, and they ignore it, it hurts all of us, not just ‘liberal environmentalists.”
As for Gore making money….when do good capitalist-loving Republicans criticize money-making? Do you really think Gore is doing this solely for money? Really?
c’mon, Chekote. You’re one of the good guys. You don’t really believe that.
39 rbottoms // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Conservatives working hard as always to make sure black folks never, ever vote for Republicans in this or the next millennium.
40 BoolaBoola // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:43 pm
The reason Republicans are so angry is:
Their effort to bring down the USA, by means of Bush/Cheney, has been suspended, at least for the time being.
You know this is true: the majority of Republicans do NOT love the USA, nor wish it well.
41 palomino70 // Nov 30, 2009 at 11:07 pm
MI-GOOPer:
“You may want to spin the facts about what is true urban and not –because it helps you live with the truth that urbanites are not the majority in America– true urbanites are generally under-educated, poor, black, crime-prone and crime-practicing, illiterate folks breeding and feeding at the govt trough…but when most Americans talk about urban types we think of two, diverse groups: black youth selling crack or Bernie Madoff types attending yet another Democrat fundraiser while tsk-ing all the homeless they have to pass on the way to the symphony or gallery.”
Here, folks, are the words of a misinfored hyper-partisan hack. Or just a pure ignoramus.
First, the majority of urbanites are neither illiterate nor criminal; in fact, most urbanites aren’t even black–lots of Latinos, Asians and even us white people live in urban areas. Sure, there may be MORE blacks and crime in urban areas than your precious suburbs, but your misrepresentation speaks of someone who gets all their demographic info from crime dramas and talk radio.
Second, as for what people think of urban areas, you’ve narrowed it down to black drug dealers and rich liberal Jews. Maybe these groups represent all of urbania in your little part of MI, but to reality-based Americans there’s a lot more in our great cities; ironically, cities actually have GREATER diversity than you’ll find in suburbs or rural areas.
Finally, do you really want to go down the road of small-town America being more “real” than urban America? After all, small towns certainly have their own share of problems with social dysfunction, e.g., crystal meth and illegitimacy. Just look at Wasilla, even it’s not perfect.
42 palomino70 // Nov 30, 2009 at 11:33 pm
sinz54: “But by November 2010, Bush will have been out of office for 22 months; and Obama will be the new owner of the Afghanistan War.
Who’s most vulnerable? Incumbent Dems from Red districts, districts that Obama had trouble carrying in 2008.
Note also that according to the latest polls, Obama’s support among white Americans has collapsed, down to only 39% and likely to drop even further.”
========================================
You sound like you’re trying to convince yourself that all is well for the GOP. It’s not. They may win back some seats in 2010, but interpreting that as a great GOP comeback is probably a big mistake.
First, the far right has taken control of the party–this may energize the base, but it alienates moderates. Second, the party has lost ground with minorities, an expanding voting bloc, and is doing nothing to reverse that trend.
Third, the 39% figure among whites is misleading; Obama only got about 45% of the white vote and his approval numbers among whites were never really off the charts.
Finally, you’re crowing over Obama now “owning” the Afghanistan War. This is a particularly cynical bit of partisanship. To the extent that Obama really does own the war, it’s only because someone else started and mismanaged it.
Do you really want the 2010 GOP campaign to be based on comparing Dems and Repubs’ handling of recent wars? This won’t make for a compelling GOP slogan: “Vote Republican…because Obama can’t clean up our mess”
43 aDude // Dec 1, 2009 at 12:27 am
I believe part of the dynamic of the hatred is the realization that America is going through a demographic shift. By 2020 a majority of the population will not be white Christians. Instead it will be black (15%), Hispanic (20%), non-Christian (20%, with some 14% atheist/agnostic and the remainder being Jewish, Muslim, etc), and a smattering of Asian and other ethnic groups.
In the last year I’ve met a number of angry conservatives who believe this represents the end of America. They can’t articulate exactly how this changes anything, but there is a gut feeling that “we” have lost and “they” are taking over, and it makes them furious.
This isn’t the first time America has gone through this. At it’s founding the population was almost entirely English or German. The religion was either Anglican or Lutheran. (The first amendment provision for freedom of religion was partly to protect the tiny minority Baptists – ironic, isn’t it?) The later arriving Irish were considered foreign to American ways. And Catholicism couldn’t possibly be a religion that a true American would have. Still later Italian immigrants were thought to be impossibly foreign. This led to groups like the Know Nothings, the American Party, and still later to the Ku Klux Klan anti-Catholic acts of terror.
We got through it. If the election in 2008 had been Giuliani vs. Clinton, his Italian ancestry would not have been an issue. (Quick test – name the 2004 Democratic candidates who were Catholic. You’ll miss at least one. It just isn’t an issue anymore).
The Republican Party has to wake up to this reality. If we are defined as the party of only white Christians, then we will never be the majority party again. And the grassroots, deprived of levers of powers, will continue to be angry.
44 balconesfault // Dec 1, 2009 at 2:14 am
rbottoms: Conservatives working hard as always to make sure black folks never, ever vote for Republicans in this or the next millennium.
Sorry man, there have been a LOT of attacks on Obama that I view as racist … but I can’t see that this ad meets that criteria. The three monkeys thing is a long standing cultural reference without any racial connotations, and the fact that it’s the largely all-white media, congress, and courts being referred to as monkeys here makes the call of racism even more obtuse.
The ad is stupid to the core, because of its message – but I think Politico is just stirring up controversy where there shouldn’t be any in order to farm for hits, and I can’t understand how the black community would take this as a racist pitch. Explain?
45 Toddtheconservative // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:33 am
We are angry where all this is headed. This link says it all:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/12/americas-decade-from-hell-indeed/
46 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:13 am
Deity on a pogo stick, I can’t make it any simpler: When dealing with a black president, no monkeys, no fried chicken, no watermelon, no black face, no rebel flag.
Ever.
Use other imagery. How freaking hard can it be.
It is the people with the background of n****r jokes, slavery, and oppression are the ones who get to decide what’s offensive.
The imagery that I listed is ALWAYS going to be taken the wrong way, no matter what you meant, or thought you meant, or how you thought we’d take it.
47 MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:25 am
AutomaticBSer proves he’s a pro at something, mostly BS’ing with this pile: “Actually it was myself that said it”
True and, once again, a meaningless distinction by you intended to distract debate… the article that hormel quoted was the point –not your nonsense. At least you are trying to make some point about something –it’s just that, sigh, you’re point has no relevance, AutomaticBSer.
It’s a shame your partisan hackery blunts any residual capacity to discern value in a discussion. It’s a pattern you repeat all too often here.
48 MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:32 am
anniemargaret –how nice to see that “refreshing”, “nonpartisan voice” of yours once again! Not.
“How insane is it when a supposedly national party such as the Republicans are now openly waging a civil war between the states? How insane is it when their idolatrous leaders such… ”
The Democrats built a greek temple to worship Obama Messiah in Denver and you can call the GOPers “idolatrous”??? Obama Messiah engages in supremely idolatrous stagecraft using dead US soldiers to assuage his far Left flanks??? Yeah, AnnieM… you got the GOPer pegged.
Alice, welcome to Wonderland. Grab Toto while you’re creating up your ficitonal reality, AnnieM.
It says a lot that some trolls here thought your pledge to leave this site was a demerit to the community.
49 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 8:01 am
MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:25 am
……another dose from the bile machine……naturally no response to the definition of “urban” which clearly embraces sub “urban” areas……….bile is this guy’s substitute for facts but it hardly masks his ignorance/denial of the most basic realities……but then that’s the movement conservative for you
50 balconesfault // Dec 1, 2009 at 8:25 am
The Democrats built a greek temple to worship Obama Messiah in Denver
And here I thought of it more as a testimony to the Greeks of Pericles time, who raised democracy to the highest levels it had been seen in the world up to that time (as opposed to the Hebrews, who had little interest in democracy, preferring to be ruled by the leader chosen by God.)
Not a surprise that with your mindset, you immediately jump to thinking of theocracy, when the rest of us are thinking democracy.
51 sinz54 // Dec 1, 2009 at 9:33 am
aDude:
I’ve heard them articulate it very well.
Their worry is that all these newly arriving immigrant groups will vote for liberal Dems to give them more and more handouts, more and more largesse. And that this will bust the Federal budget and turn America into a European-style cradle-to-grave welfare state.
When Italian and Jewish immigrants arrived in America early in the 20th century, we didn’t yet have a gargantuan Federal government, with a zillion social programs. They were forced to make it on their own, despite the abject poverty they experienced. Today’s immigrants are arriving after the Federal government has already grown to gargantuan proportions and is ALREADY running up trillion dollar deficits and multi-trillion dollar debts.
52 balconesfault // Dec 1, 2009 at 9:35 am
When Italian and Jewish immigrants arrived in America early in the 20th century, we didn’t yet have a gargantuan Federal government, with a zillion social programs.
And we weren’t an empire, determined to spend whatever resources it took to have the most powerful military in the world at all times. Those things have costs, as well.
53 sinz54 // Dec 1, 2009 at 9:39 am
hormelmeatco:
In 2010, Obama isn’t running.
And in the congressional elections, we don’t have “one man, one vote.” We have a Senate in which a state like Utah gets as many seats as a state like California. And we have a House in which gerrymandering has created safe districts for liberal Dems like Serrano (D-N.Y.) with huge numbers of minorities–but such a safe district, with a huge number of voters, still gets just one vote. While a district from Wyoming with far fewer voters also gets that same one vote.
That’s why the GOP could win a landslide in 1994, taking both the House and Senate, despite just splitting the popular vote evenly with the Dems. The way we structure the House and Senate makes it work out that way.
In the districts I’m talking about, the Dems had run “Blue Dog” and “Fighting Dem” type Dems to try to appeal to moderate and largely white electoral blocs. They succeeded–barely. Some of them won by only a few thousand votes in districts that McCain carried.
Those are highly vulnerable.
This is a reversal of what happened in 2006. Then, it wasn’t staunch conservative Republicans from staunchly conservative districts who were defeated. It was moderate Repubs like Christopher Shays from moderate-to-liberal areas who were defeated.
54 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 9:58 am
The icecaps are shrinking, Chekote. Very obvious and it doesn’t need a scientist to put their imprimatur on those photos.
You do realize that ice caps have only been present about 20% of the earth’s history. I suggest you watch “How the Earth Was Made” on the History Channel. We have gone through many, many, extreme weather changes. There have been periods where the CO2 levels were higher than current times and we still had ice caps. The climate is highly complex. CO2 is one driver and so far what we have is computer models that failed to predict the cooling that has occured since 1998. If you are interested in protecting the environment and species, please note that the constant clearing and deforestation are doing more harm than AGW. Species are disappering because we are destroying their habitat by building more housing or growing crops for biofuels.
I have no problem with Gore making money. Except he is doing it by fear mongering. Plus, he has made a career of railing against the rich capitalists. Talk about hypocrisy.
55 MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 10:45 am
AutomaticBSer chimes in from the crapper: “naturally no response to the definition of “urban” which clearly embraces sub “urban” areas…”
Well, let’s see, AutomaticBSer, you’re wrong again. I did define urban for you, my Village Idiot friend, it’s the corrupted, rotted, fetid stinking swamp of inner cities managed by democrats across America –Detroit, Gary, Flint, DC, Oakland, Philley, Burlington, et al. See #18, my Village Idiot and farLeft Jester. Of course, truth and facts never seem to get in your way for a little trollish spite-fest, no?
Your pal & intellectual soulmate –Balconesfault/BarryS– would like to paint it (urban) as some Bernie Madoff affluence of the democrat swill, but that exists only in the minds of democrat felon icons like Bernie and Martha Stewart… and their die hard, admiring fans like you.
Nope, former Governor Palin was right… what’s fundamentally wrong with Washington could be fixed with a solid dose of real common sense from Main Street Wasilla. Washington is filled to the brim with faux elitist, “urban democrat” poster boys like Kerry, Dingell, Waxman, Rangel, Pelosi and Hoyer.
You’d like to spin it into some distracted debate that former Governor Palin is a minority perspective… she’s not. I don’t share many of her views but one thing is clear –America is warming to Sarah Palin’s story (54% favorable now), they’re turning off to Obama’s act as Celebrity in Chief and all his Oz-like stagecraft, they’re turning against his health scare reform plans and they’re turning against the democrats.
The Celebrity in Chief now stands like a turkey carcass on Black Friday –sporting a bare-bones, negative 15% Rating… voters now poll the generic GOP ballot 7+ points over the democrats… a majority of voters do NOT favor democrat health scare plans (53-56%)… a majority of voters think the country is heading in the wrong direction (69%)… and a majority of voters think the GOP has better answers on the major issues of the day that matter –not the democrats– and on health care reform, American voters think the GOP solutions are slightly better than the democrat reforms.
David misses a big point in his article: GOP base voters aren’t the only ones angry with their leadership –so is America with Obama… and when Tea Party and TownHall patriots gather, their scorn is more directed at our Celebrity in Chief than it is at Steele, Boehner, Cantor or McConnell.
Like all good democrat trolls, AutomaticBS’er, you have the biggest problem trying to distinguish between a) conservative movement leaders like Rush, Sean, Glenn and others and b) GOP leaders. Frankly, I put Sarah Palin in the camp of conservative leaders & voices –not in the camp of GOP leaders and voices because I think she’s really speaking to their concerns more than those of party activists.
But then, if you and your fellow trolls did that, you wouldn’t have Sarah to kick around anymore, yes?
And you guys are all about kicking the can down the street and not about the goal of this site: “FrumForum.com is a site edited by David Frum, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.” Keep kicking the can, AutomaticBS’er, pretty soon you’ll be the only Village Idiot in the street wondering where everyone went.
56 MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 10:54 am
BlankHead tosses empty peanut shells from the cheap seats: “Not a surprise that with your mindset, you immediately jump to thinking of theocracy, when the rest of us are thinking democracy.”
Not at all, BlankHead… and it’s no surprise to any here that you’d get it wrong, again… I said “The Democrats built a greek temple to worship Obama Messiah in Denver ” to AnnieM’s ridiculous comment about the GOP having idols like Beck, Palin, Limbaugh.
I never mentioned God or religion. Your team is the one who used “theocracy” to deride conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s –and you try it again, shooting more blanks, here. Your team is the one who sneers in saying “Christianist”. Your team is the one who denuded the War on Terror for fear of alienating muslims and not practicing the liberal perfecting art of political correctness… which, we now know, lead to the slaughter of innocents by an Islamic terrorist at Ft Hood.
I said the democrats built an altar to worship the Obama Messiah in Denver –you say that means I’m thinking “theocracy”? You’re proving to be another Village Idiot all on your own, Balconesfault/BarryS. Stick to spin –the truth isn’t your friend.
57 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 11:54 am
MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 10:45 am
‘AutomaticBSer chimes in from the crapper: “naturally no response to the definition of “urban” which clearly embraces sub “urban” areas…”
Well, let’s see, AutomaticBSer, you’re wrong again. I did define urban for you, my Village Idiot friend, it’s the corrupted, rotted, fetid stinking swamp of inner cities managed by democrats across America –Detroit, Gary, Flint, DC, Oakland, Philley, Burlington, et al. See #18, my Village Idiot and farLeft Jester. Of course, truth and facts never seem to get in your way for a little trollish spite-fest, no?”
……..Unfortunately your definition doesn’t agree with one I provided from an encyclopaedia…..and judging by the subsequent rodomantade one has to wonder if you skipped the meds this morning
58 hormelmeatco // Dec 1, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“Those are highly vulnerable.”
How many of those will actually change parties?
2010 is not going to be a repeat of 1994. You’re too optimistic and overestimating the fatigue people supposedly feel towards the Democrats.
“In 2010, Obama isn’t running.”
You brought him up, not me.
59 MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:56 pm
AutomaticBS’er chimes in from the real cheap seats: “Unfortunately your definition doesn’t agree with one I provided from an encyclopaedia…..and judging by the subsequent rodomantade one has to wonder if you skipped the meds this morning”
Well, this is maybe the 5th thread you’ve tried that ol’ far Left tactic of trying to discredit your better opponent by projecting onto to them an illness.
You’ve projected yourself here, automaticBS’er, as a highly educated, worldly traveller with extensive internt’l elan that would rival Thos Jefferson on his best days… and still you choose to make fun of anyone with an illness –real or, in my case, projected on to me by an inferior, hypocritical opponent like you?
It’s a shame that liberals like you fail to show the compassion you demand from others for yourself and your interests. What a shallow, hollow, little mind you have.
60 anniemargret // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Good grief, Charlie Brown.
Does anyone here really think anyone’s opinions are going to change the dynamics of their party, or policy? This is a blog. That’s all it is. We are throwing ideas back and forth, critiquing each other, getting whacked on the head sometimes, but so what?
I’ve agreed with both Chekote and Sinz many times and disagreed other times. Sometimes they agree with me, often than not, I get whacked a bit. I expect it. I did not join this group because I expect to be agreed with. I have learned some things here, that I probably would not learn on solidly liberal sites.
Mi-GOPer….in all sincerity, it is profoundly incorrect to think by barring any dissension here, you are doing a service. The Democrats here, or liberals, or ‘trolls’ or whatever are not going to change policy for conservatives, nor affect Republicanism. They may, however, give you food for thought.
btw – I’ve said at the outset that I am a left of center Democrat. I am not a nonpartisan. I registered from an Independent status of where I was at for over a decade to the Democratic party after Bush was re-elected. I still have an Independent streak in me and if the GOP ever sounds normal again or if the Democrats too a bad job at the end of 4 years…who knows, I may be Independent again. I am more concerned for this country and its citizens than my party.
But of course, why in the world am I trying to convince *you?*
Frankly, when the liberals were going off the deep end some years ago, I read and listened to critiques on other sites to hear what the opposition was saying. Sometimes the opposition is correct.
I was invited by David Frum to join in the discussion; my own good educated guess is that he perhaps is keeping the doors open in case some disgruntled Independent or Democrat wants to switch sides. In that, he is being wise.
However, if David Frum decides tomorrow he would prefer only conservatives or Republicans debate issues, than so be it. I will honor his wishes. So far he hasn’t done this, and since it is his site, I’ll join in when I can.
Chekote: I hear you on the climate change issue. I still am of the opinion that CO2 levels are still impacting the environment, despite the idiots that were playing politics. That is what makes me so angry. We have serious issues in this country, all of us, so it would be really nice from time to time that we can agree on something outside of a political frame of reference.
Or am I completely bonkers?
PS: I am watching “How the Earth Was Made”.. History is a great channel.
61 anniemargret // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:09 pm
chekote: My pov was not about you; I was referring to the moronic ’scientists’ who are playing politics with a serious issue. And yes, I still think it’s a serious issue.
You must log in to post a comment.