The Republicans Are Now The Stupid Party

[chess9]

According to J.C. Watts, America has at least 66 million Evangelical Christians and maybe as many as 90 million. The Christian evangelicals are mostly people with little to no scientific education. Unless our school system changes radically, large segments of our population will embrace radical religious doctrine because they NEED it. They don't understand how the world works and the God paradigm makes their lives bearable.

I don't see our political system quite so simplistically as Mr. Hart. The party of God, Guns, and Gays needs to appeal to more of it's possible allies, including independents who in the past have voted for Bush in droves, and get a silver tongued candidate. McCain was a 'false prophet' and most of them knew it. If they find a leader who is in his early 40's and filled with fire and brimstone and a brain, I have no doubt the Republicans will take back the White House. Why? Because America's educational system turns out a high percentage of dumb fuckers and will continue to do so for the next 10 years, even if we have educational reform. (50% of high school students don't graduate in most major cities).

The future looks very bleak once Obama leaves office. I hope I'm wrong, and that Hart and Peyton are right. But, I've been watching the idiots in America for 65 years and they usually get their way.

-Robert

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: chess9
According to J.C. Watts, America has at least 66 million Evangelical Christians and maybe as many as 90 million. The Christian evangelicals are mostly people with little to no scientific education. Unless our school system changes radically, large segments of our population will embrace radical religious doctrine because they NEED it. They don't understand how the world works and the God paradigm makes their lives bearable.

I don't see our political system quite so simplistically as Mr. Hart. The party of God, Guns, and Gays needs to appeal to more of it's possible allies, including independents who in the past have voted for Bush in droves, and get a silver tongued candidate. McCain was a 'false prophet' and most of them knew it. If they find a leader who is in his early 40's and filled with fire and brimstone and a brain, I have no doubt the Republicans will take back the White House. Why? Because America's educational system turns out a high percentage of dumb fuckers and will continue to do so for the next 10 years, even if we have educational reform. (50% of high school students don't graduate in most major cities).

The future looks very bleak once Obama leaves office. I hope I'm wrong, and that Hart and Peyton are right. But, I've been watching the idiots in America for 65 years and they usually get their way.

-Robert

Interesting. Would you please link the educational demographics of that specific group you've found? Anecdotal evidence need not apply of course.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A spot-on analysis from a former Reagan/Nixon speech writer.
SNIP

Basically a liberal saying what liberals always say: Republicans are stupid, conservatives are stupid. How is this at all surprising? ....

What cracks me up about liberals in general is that, for all their talk of equality and diversity, they sure don't like it when someone has religious convictions.

Did you miss the part about Hart being a (classic conservative) Republican? He's since supported the Dems after W ran the country off the cliff.

He's a conservative agreeing with what liberals always say, as has been the trend among the intelligencia of the conservative sphere this past cycle.

In 1962 he joined William F. Buckley's conservative journal National Review as a book reviewer, requiring a trip from Hanover, New Hampshire to New York every other week. Later, he would contribute as a writer and editor for the better part of the ensuing three decades even as he fulfilled his teaching responsibilities as a professor at Dartmouth. He is still a Senior Editor with the magazine.

Hart took a leave of absence from Dartmouth in 1968 to work for the abortive presidential campaign of Governor of California Ronald Reagan. This role led to brief service as a White House speechwriter for Richard Nixon.

Praising abortion as the vanguard of women's equality is the stuff of liberals, not intelligent conservatives. If he's conservative, it is in the fiscal sense only. But he's not making fiscal points. He's talking about gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research, all of which are social issues.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Praising abortion as the vanguard of women's equality is the stuff of liberals, not intelligent conservatives. If he's conservative, it is in the fiscal sense only. But he's not making fiscal points. He's talking about gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research, all of which are social issues.

Yes, and of which the opposition is formed almost entirely among religious groups who form their opinions on those issues based on their faith.

What he seems to be criticizing to me is the Rep strategy of making those social issues the cornerstone of the party, which is antithetical to Buckley & Co's brand of conservatism.

Kathleen Parker (another raging liberal??) also savages the Rep campaign of 08 and more or less agrees that they catered to the anti-intellectual pseudo-science knownothings and wore that badge proudly. She foregoes discussion of the social issues and gets at the heart of what Hart was really talking about.

http://www.slate.com/id/2203800/entry/2204034/

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Another jpeyton piece of crap OP, meant to demoralize Republicans.

The GOP doesn't need my help to demoralize themselves.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Another jpeyton piece of crap OP, meant to demoralize Republicans.

I for one thank the OP for the posting. :thumbsup:

 

[eits]

isn't this thread pretty similar to the thread i posted about my speculating that the republican party has adopted an anti-intellectual platform?

i remember certain dipshits crying and calling me an idiot in that thread...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Evangelicals want Creationism taught. Obama has his agenda for my kids. Give me a friggin party which has the platform of leaving people alone and I'll consider them.

I'm curious - what's Obama's agenda for your kids?

I'm serious. I want to know what part of Obama's agenda for your kids is the equivalent of teaching creationism in school?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What cracks me up about liberals in general is that, for all their talk of equality and diversity, they sure don't like it when someone has religious convictions.

No, we just don't like it when people attempt to codify those religious convictions as law. I'm all for personal freedom myself; as long as what you're doing doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, knock yourself out. If "liberals" started passing all sorts of laws born out of atheism that made parts of certain religions illegal, I wouldn't support that either.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I have trouble buying into any fundamental paradigm shifts out of this election considering the situations surrounding it -- people flocking to the democratic party when it runs one of the most charismatic leaders in a generation under the absolute best climate for a political party since at least Nixon doesn't necessarily indicate a real substantial shift in the politics and views of our country so much as a movement that could be isolated to Obama and evaporate as soon as the glow dies down and the democrats have to run someone's who's name isn't Barack.

on the other hand the republicans ran a candidate that should have, if not for the economy and an unpopular incumbent, run away with the election in a rout. Going into the election season, John McCain was probably one of the 5 best known active politicians and the one most if not the most widely liked.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
You guys are thinking too deep into this.

People are losing houses, people lost a chunk of 401K. People hate Iraq.

Even with all that baggage, Mccain got 46%.

There is no "ideology" shift. People liked Obama, and didnt like JM.

i think most people liked john mccain, in different times and with a different running mate, he certainly could have gotten my vote, and i still think he is capable of the job.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The Republicans Are Now The Stupid Party

Does this mean the Democrats are now the Party of Evil?

thats the libertarian party, but then again this in nothing new

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What cracks me up about liberals in general is that, for all their talk of equality and diversity, they sure don't like it when someone has religious convictions.

No, we just don't like it when people attempt to codify those religious convictions as law. I'm all for personal freedom myself; as long as what you're doing doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, knock yourself out. If "liberals" started passing all sorts of laws born out of atheism that made parts of certain religions illegal, I wouldn't support that either.

liberals actually dislike people with religious convictions so much that they give them the most undesirable job in the country

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Mani

The most poignant part of the article though is that the republicans are losing ground on each successive generation, and under 30 by a huge margin. Whether it's a step function or not, a shift is happening.

Young people can afford to be democrats, wait until they are a bit older and want to keep their income.

republicans have a notable history of keeping government spending in lines, under such presidents as reagan and bush II who were strict budget hawks.

 

[miketheidiot]

fixing in process

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Duwelon
What are we supposed to do, just accept his tripe as facts because he's been a speechwriter and worked as a journalist? Mr Jeffrey Hart projects his opinions in an article, details at 11...

Another jpeyton piece of crap OP, meant to demoralize Republicans.

That is probably true, it was meant to demoralize... but there is truth to it.

If you are a republican you have to admit, that being the all white rural, elderly party in a mixed suburban, young culture gives you cause for concern. For the most part, in another 10 years the oldest of the old voting block people will be baby boomers. The previous generation that is a faithful republican voting block will be virtually gone. The world is getting more liberal, and less religious. The more voters that were raised in a culture of science over religion, and tolerance toward differences the less the current republican party will get votes. the WILL need to change or fade away.

I am much more worried about hispanics than the young. The young are idealistic and clueless. A few years in the workforce watching 30% of their paycheck go to pay for bridges to nowhere and bailing out of big industry will taint their views of who is in power. Right now the party that was in power were republicans. Give the democrats 10 years to fuck around and those 20 somethings turn into 30 somethings with kids and are pissed and take it out on the party in power(democrats).

you were raised in an era in which government was evil and liberal was a curse word, that time may be passing. If the next 4-8 years go well, i don't think there is going to be much of a backlash, especially when neither party offers any difference except what they spend it on. As far as being 'young and idealistic' i think anyone reasonable would think that's better than being old and stupid. If i were a republican strategist, i wouldn't bet the farm on young people shifting right as they get older.

Hispanics are and will be a force to reckon with over the next 50 years. Republicans have an in with them. That demographic is social conservative. But they have to actually get into their districts and campaign. Bush\Cheney in 04 did a wonderful job of targetting and getting the Hispanic vote. McCain utterly failed and I dont know why. He had the issue Obama was unwilling to talk about. Immigration reform. Total failure by Republicans on this.

unfortunately for republicans, the xenophobic attitudes of most republicans (either real or perceived) will prevent Hispanics from joining the conservative coalition, after all how can you be a white cultural conservative and let a bunch of damn foreigners into your country? In also don't see how Hispanics can join with the republicans, who are almost in unison on being against your immediate interests (as a Hispanic)

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What cracks me up about liberals in general is that, for all their talk of equality and diversity, they sure don't like it when someone has religious convictions.

Liberals in general don't really give a shit about anyone elses particular religious convictions, but i'm always entertained when religious people cry about oppression when people get in their way of forcing their religion on people.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Mani

The most poignant part of the article though is that the republicans are losing ground on each successive generation, and under 30 by a huge margin. Whether it's a step function or not, a shift is happening.

Young people can afford to be democrats, wait until they are a bit older and want to keep their income.

republicans have a notable history of keeping government spending in lines, under such presidents as reagan and bush II who were strict budget hawks.

Don't confuse spending with income tax. Under Reagan the top income tax bracket dropped from 70% to 50% in '81, and then down to 28% in '86. It hit about 40% under Clinton and then back to 35% under W. Under Obama it will probably be raised back to 40% as it was under Billyboy.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Mani

The most poignant part of the article though is that the republicans are losing ground on each successive generation, and under 30 by a huge margin. Whether it's a step function or not, a shift is happening.

Young people can afford to be democrats, wait until they are a bit older and want to keep their income.

republicans have a notable history of keeping government spending in lines, under such presidents as reagan and bush II who were strict budget hawks.

Don't confuse spending with income tax. Under Reagan the top income tax bracket dropped from 70% to 50% in '81, and then down to 28% in '86. It hit about 40% under Clinton and then back to 35% under W. Under Obama it will probably be raised back to 40% as it was under Billyboy.

spending is a tax, its paid for through inflation and by your children.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Don't confuse spending with income tax. Under Reagan the top income tax bracket dropped from 70% to 50% in '81, and then down to 28% in '86. It hit about 40% under Clinton and then back to 35% under W. Under Obama it will probably be raised back to 40% as it was under Billyboy.

Regardless, federal spending EXPANDED under Reagan despite his less-govt, lower-taxes belief, so did the deficit.

 

[daniel49]

Jpeyton:
even with Iraq, the economy going to pot, and an impopular incumbant, Obama only managed to pull 52% of the vote.

Give the Dems a few years to show everyone they are just as bad as what they thought they had voted out, and It swings the other way again.

So enjoy your little party, odds are it won't last long.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Jpeyton:
even with Iraq, the economy going to pot, and an impopular incumbant, Obama only managed to pull 52% of the vote.

Give the Dems a few years to show everyone they are just as bad as what they thought they had voted out, and It swings the other way again.

So enjoy your little party, odds are it won't last long.

Time will tell if they are just as bad, but what if they are not?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: daniel49
even with Iraq, the economy going to pot, and an impopular incumbant, Obama only managed to pull 52% of the vote.

Daniel, I know intellectualism is dead in the GOP, but you can do better than this, right? Do you really need to bring up a bullshit statistic that's been explained away dozens of times?

In modern times, under the two major parties, there have been very few cases of any one party getting more than a slight majority vote. Even so, a small win in popular vote translates into a decisive win in the electoral college.

Obama actually won a very LARGE victory in the popular vote. Unlike the last two GOP victories in 2000 (where Bush actually LOST the popular vote) and 2004 (where Bush won the popular vote by 2%), Obama currently leads McCain by 7% in the popular vote (which translates into over 8 million votes and counting).

This translates into a landslide electoral victory, with Obama's 365 electoral votes leaving McCain with only 174. McCain hasn't been beat that hard since the Hanoi Hilton.

Obama turned so many 'Ruby Red' states blue this year that McCain's hail mary was to dive head-first into a Democrat stronghold: PA. It was a long shot that never materialized, because Obama ran the score way up in Kerry states (he won PA by 9 points MORE than what Kerry got in 2004).

Give the Dems a few years to show everyone they are just as bad as what they thought they had voted out, and It swings the other way again.

Unfortunately (for you), Bush set the bar so low it's almost impossible for this President not to do better in the public's eye. Bush's disapproval rating in October 2004, shortly before he was re-elected, was 47%. Obama, with his 21st century political organization (which frankly kicks the GOP political machine of Bush/Rove in the teeth in regards to G.O.T.V. and fund raising) and his widespread appeal is a lock for re-election.

So enjoy your little party, odds are it won't last long.

It'll last eight years. That's long enough for the term limit to kick in.

January 20th, 2017. Mark it on your calendars.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain hasn't been beat that hard since the Hanoi Hilton.

What a tactless joke, and on Veteran's Day too.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: daniel49
even with Iraq, the economy going to pot, and an impopular incumbant, Obama only managed to pull 52% of the vote.

Daniel, I know intellectualism is dead in the GOP, but you can do better than this, right? Do you really need to bring up a bullshit statistic that's been explained away dozens of times?

In modern times, under the two major parties, there have been very few cases of any one party getting more than a slight majority vote. Even so, a small win in popular vote translates into a decisive win in the electoral college.

Obama actually won a very LARGE victory in the popular vote. Unlike the last two GOP victories in 2000 (where Bush actually LOST the popular vote) and 2004 (where Bush won the popular vote by 2%), Obama currently leads McCain by 7% in the popular vote (which translates into over 8 million votes and counting).

This translates into a landslide electoral victory, with Obama's 365 electoral votes leaving McCain with only 174. McCain hasn't been beat that hard since the Hanoi Hilton.

Obama turned so many 'Ruby Red' states blue this year that McCain's hail mary was to dive head-first into a Democrat stronghold: PA. It was a long shot that never materialized, because Obama ran the score way up in Kerry states (he won PA by 9 points MORE than what Kerry got in 2004).

Give the Dems a few years to show everyone they are just as bad as what they thought they had voted out, and It swings the other way again.

Unfortunately (for you), Bush set the bar so low it's almost impossible for this President not to do better in the public's eye. Bush's disapproval rating in October 2004, shortly before he was re-elected, was 47%. Obama, with his 21st century political organization (which frankly kicks the GOP political machine of Bush/Rove in the teeth in regards to G.O.T.V. and fund raising) and his widespread appeal is a lock for re-election.

So enjoy your little party, odds are it won't last long.

It'll last eight years. That's long enough for the term limit to kick in.

January 20th, 2017. Mark it on your calendars.

It is very difficult to tell just how much of a cultural or electorate shift this election is about. One point I think is important to mention is 9/11.

We have just elected a black man named Barack Hussein Obama, less than 8 years after a terrorist attack on the US. An attack that prompted 2 wars.

That to me is difficult to comprehend, even in light of all other problems facing this nation.