In the 2000 election and a little bit of the 2004 election, the Repugnicans could simply push their "hot button" issues of God, Guns, and Gays to motivate their voters. But that old trick has become passe' now and just doesn't have the impact it did a decade ago.
In 2000, we were still enjoying some of the good life of the Clinton administration. People were working, jobs weren't being sent overseas, all the wars (more acurately, skirmishes) we participated in were over before they started. We enjoyed a good reputation on the world stage due to our foreign policy. And, most importantly, we had a surplus in the Treasury! Things were so good that we were the perfect victims for the Fear Mongers.
The GOP spent eight years trying to pin some crime on President Clinton and, failing that, attempted the same with his wife, When they failed at impeachment for the flimsiest of charges, they had little left except fear. So they created the fear that Liberals, Progressives, and the Democratic Party were trying to take their God away in any way they could imagine... and they were VERY imaginative! Then, for those that didn't fear "god" being taken away, they pointed accusing fingers at those trying to control guns and crime as "trying to take our guns away"! Finally, for those who might still have some sense of security in place, they trotted out a Gay person and claimed they were trying to advance an agenda that included them "recuiting our kids to their sinful ways"!
We watched as the Fear Fector did it's worst in 2000 and 2004. In 2006, they realized the price to be paid for Fear-based Voting. The Fear-based voter got what it voted for and that was nothing but more fear. They were in no better place after three national elections. God's not any better off. Guns are still available; even assualt rifles are legal now! And Gay people are no better or worse off than they were in 1999. The net of the three "hot button" issues? Zero!
It appears however, that the GOP still hasn't gotten the message. The "debates" in North Carolina offered some insight into the formation of the GOP platform and, surprise, it's no different than it was in 2000! It's still God, Guns and Gays and that just won't do it anymore when there's an 800 gorilla called Iraq in the middle of the room.
(You know, W, if you're looking for a War Czar to act as the Commander-in-Chief, you should consider Bill Clinton. He had two wars while in office and an uncooperative, adversarial Congress yet managed to rise above that with hardly any losses and no lasting entanglement.)
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Pat Robertson's Black Hole...
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s commencement speech at Pat Robertson’s Regent University was widely covered as a test of whether the former governor’s Mormonism can appeal to an audience that regards the religion as a cult.
(From Right Wing Watch)
It could have been just one of the routine commencements held across the nation Saturday - but this was a Mormon addressing students of a school that labels itself "America's pre-eminent Christian university," a scene pundits could predict would be tense given the evangelical community's concerns with followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In that sense, Romney’s visit was a success. Oft-quoted political scientist Larry Sabato said that “Being at Pat Robertson University is the message he needs.” The parent of one Regent grad told a reporter, “It wasn't until he was about halfway through his speech that I remembered he was Mormon." You can’t buy press like that.
(From the Salt Lake Tribune)
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/05/romneys_pilgrim.html?tr=y&auid=2670816
It's frightening when the extreme right wing must appeal to other segments of the extreme right wing in order to find acceptance but there is silver lining in that dark cloud!
This is yet another example of the right wing's continued implosion and I'm not surprised. I'm an avid historian and predicted much of this back in the 1970's when I looked carefully at what was then the "Jesus Movement". While I saw many who were honestly coming to an epiphany of religious insight, I saw a group who were standing on the fringe waiting to exploit that group of new believers.
In the 1980's they carefully worked at building a huge network of friends; both political and financial. Their zenith was in the Reagan adminsitration when they discovered that political power was much more satisfying and profitable than "faith". They set about building satillite communications and educational facilities. They got elected officials into office at state and local levels. These officals later influenced and even corrupted federal elections which gave them a "born again" President; TWICE!
In both Bush administrations they found fetile ground to place their graduates in influential government positions where they could influence not only legislation but now they could control the execution of those laws. All the while they attacked the remaining "check and balance" of the Judicial Branch of government by removing "activist judges" and getting their sympathizers into those positions. With a neutered judiciary, a controlled executive and a "hands-off" legislative branch, they wrecked havok for the last five years which came to a high-water mark when they got us involved in Iraq in what is believed to be an insane attempt to hurry along their saviour's return to earth and their own "rapture".
One of the most successful of these religious charlatans is Pat Robertson who has proven himself as the Axis Mundi of Evil. Those wishing to drink from his well of money and influence, must come pay him homage. Mit Romney, being a member of what many religious fundamentalists consider a cult and a non-Christian at that, must appeal to this group for their acceptance. Obviously, it will have some effect, but the core of the "faithful" are skeptical and probably won't support him when it comes to voting. He barely gets 10 percent of the poll numbers.
Pat isn't just looking at the 2008 electio, he's looking at an alliance with the Mormon church to extend his influence and power. He knows 2008 won't be a Republican victory. He's got bigger fish to fry and Mit is just a single course in an elaborate buffet. But with all that "food", they will still not be satisfied and will continue to hunger for more.
As I said, this is an implosion. That is, the Right Wing, Religious Fundamentalists won't explode as they pass into oblivion. Historically, that's never happened. Rather, they will impode. In other words, they draw those around them into their ring of influence and suck the life out of them. They feed on the energy, power and influence of the smaller groups to enpower themselves in their self-destructive efforts. Mit Romney, has placed himself inside the "danger zone" by getting too close to Pat Robertson. Like a Black Hole, Pat will draw him in and Mit will never know what happened until it's over. There won't even be any bones. It happens to those who come near him; ask James Bakker and Jerry Falwell. And, you know, I'm glad because the more powerful they becomes, the closer they get to their personal and political Armageddon. The 2006 Election was the beginning of the end and 2008 will be the high-water mark for Justice and Truth in the USA.
-Devon
(From Right Wing Watch)
It could have been just one of the routine commencements held across the nation Saturday - but this was a Mormon addressing students of a school that labels itself "America's pre-eminent Christian university," a scene pundits could predict would be tense given the evangelical community's concerns with followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In that sense, Romney’s visit was a success. Oft-quoted political scientist Larry Sabato said that “Being at Pat Robertson University is the message he needs.” The parent of one Regent grad told a reporter, “It wasn't until he was about halfway through his speech that I remembered he was Mormon." You can’t buy press like that.
(From the Salt Lake Tribune)
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/05/romneys_pilgrim.html?tr=y&auid=2670816
It's frightening when the extreme right wing must appeal to other segments of the extreme right wing in order to find acceptance but there is silver lining in that dark cloud!
This is yet another example of the right wing's continued implosion and I'm not surprised. I'm an avid historian and predicted much of this back in the 1970's when I looked carefully at what was then the "Jesus Movement". While I saw many who were honestly coming to an epiphany of religious insight, I saw a group who were standing on the fringe waiting to exploit that group of new believers.
In the 1980's they carefully worked at building a huge network of friends; both political and financial. Their zenith was in the Reagan adminsitration when they discovered that political power was much more satisfying and profitable than "faith". They set about building satillite communications and educational facilities. They got elected officials into office at state and local levels. These officals later influenced and even corrupted federal elections which gave them a "born again" President; TWICE!
In both Bush administrations they found fetile ground to place their graduates in influential government positions where they could influence not only legislation but now they could control the execution of those laws. All the while they attacked the remaining "check and balance" of the Judicial Branch of government by removing "activist judges" and getting their sympathizers into those positions. With a neutered judiciary, a controlled executive and a "hands-off" legislative branch, they wrecked havok for the last five years which came to a high-water mark when they got us involved in Iraq in what is believed to be an insane attempt to hurry along their saviour's return to earth and their own "rapture".
One of the most successful of these religious charlatans is Pat Robertson who has proven himself as the Axis Mundi of Evil. Those wishing to drink from his well of money and influence, must come pay him homage. Mit Romney, being a member of what many religious fundamentalists consider a cult and a non-Christian at that, must appeal to this group for their acceptance. Obviously, it will have some effect, but the core of the "faithful" are skeptical and probably won't support him when it comes to voting. He barely gets 10 percent of the poll numbers.
Pat isn't just looking at the 2008 electio, he's looking at an alliance with the Mormon church to extend his influence and power. He knows 2008 won't be a Republican victory. He's got bigger fish to fry and Mit is just a single course in an elaborate buffet. But with all that "food", they will still not be satisfied and will continue to hunger for more.
As I said, this is an implosion. That is, the Right Wing, Religious Fundamentalists won't explode as they pass into oblivion. Historically, that's never happened. Rather, they will impode. In other words, they draw those around them into their ring of influence and suck the life out of them. They feed on the energy, power and influence of the smaller groups to enpower themselves in their self-destructive efforts. Mit Romney, has placed himself inside the "danger zone" by getting too close to Pat Robertson. Like a Black Hole, Pat will draw him in and Mit will never know what happened until it's over. There won't even be any bones. It happens to those who come near him; ask James Bakker and Jerry Falwell. And, you know, I'm glad because the more powerful they becomes, the closer they get to their personal and political Armageddon. The 2006 Election was the beginning of the end and 2008 will be the high-water mark for Justice and Truth in the USA.
-Devon
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Who's gona win in 2008?
Hot off the press... MSNBC... reporting on a recent poll... "Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat: besting Giuliani 50 to 43 percent, among registered voters; beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, and defeating Romney 58 percent to 29 percent"
You'll enjoy this moment, Matt. We're talking in the break room at work, me and a "conservative". The news about Obama getting Secret Service protection sparked a conversation about his candidancy versus Clinton. Another Liberal and I agree that it's refreshing to have these two for consideration. The "conservative" chimes in that he would support Obama over Clinton... an "anybody but Clinton" sort of mentality but interesting nonetheless. He also said that the Repubs haven't got a chance in this next election so it's going to be important what Democrat gets the nomination.
Now I know you support Edwards and I'd be gald to hear your points again... this time for the public, please. I am still making up my mind. I lean towards both Clinton and Obama at the monent, and in that order.
I'd like to see a woman President. It's about time. For over 30 years I've been supporting the idea of more female represenation in Congress. After all, 51 percent of the population is Female (making them hardly a minority statistically) but they are represented by only three or four (can't recall the specifics) women in the Senate. So less than 5 percent of the highest deliberative, legislative body represents 51 percent of the population? That's nonsense! Women need to get out and support their candidates. If they do, then Clinton is a total "slam dunk" (I almost hesitate to use that word in light of recent Tenet testimony).
Obama, on the other hand, brings to the election, the Presidential "attitude" that Bush displayed in the 2000 election... that confident, full speed ahead, attitude that makes Americans wanna salute the flag. That's probably what gets the support of the "conservatives" like my office friend. They like the BigDaddy, "I'm gonna protect you and kick the butt of anyone who means to harm you" sort. Obama pushes right up to the edge of that without going into the Bush-bravado, swagger, flightsuit thing W did on Mission Accomplished Day.
So, it's interesting to note two things. One, A Democrat will win the election and it will probably be either a woman or a black if it's between Clinton and Obama. I predict a Clinton-Obama ticket and, therefore, BOTH will win. The question now is which order, Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton?
(Note: I use the term "conservative" to describe those who claim to be conservative because nowadays, they are not really conservative in the politically, historical sense of the word. Matt, you have a great way of defining this and I'll leave it to you to make your point. anyway, today's "conservatives" are not really conservative in the Goldwater sense of the word. Back then, they truely wanted less federal government and more local and state control. They wanted decisions made at a local level based on the "majority rule". The problem is, that doesn't work any more. Our problems today are global and international. Trying to solve them one state at a time isn't going to work anymore. More about this later... Today's conservative movement is really a mixture of fiscal tightwads, sometime libertarians, social/sexual repressives, ignorant, poorly educated or informed, well meaning social protectionists, lead by power and money hungry self promoters. There's little that really conservative in the movement that was there in 1980. The only thing conservative about the movement today is their use of the label "conservative". Matt you have some really excellent thoughts on this. Please share them!)
You'll enjoy this moment, Matt. We're talking in the break room at work, me and a "conservative". The news about Obama getting Secret Service protection sparked a conversation about his candidancy versus Clinton. Another Liberal and I agree that it's refreshing to have these two for consideration. The "conservative" chimes in that he would support Obama over Clinton... an "anybody but Clinton" sort of mentality but interesting nonetheless. He also said that the Repubs haven't got a chance in this next election so it's going to be important what Democrat gets the nomination.
Now I know you support Edwards and I'd be gald to hear your points again... this time for the public, please. I am still making up my mind. I lean towards both Clinton and Obama at the monent, and in that order.
I'd like to see a woman President. It's about time. For over 30 years I've been supporting the idea of more female represenation in Congress. After all, 51 percent of the population is Female (making them hardly a minority statistically) but they are represented by only three or four (can't recall the specifics) women in the Senate. So less than 5 percent of the highest deliberative, legislative body represents 51 percent of the population? That's nonsense! Women need to get out and support their candidates. If they do, then Clinton is a total "slam dunk" (I almost hesitate to use that word in light of recent Tenet testimony).
Obama, on the other hand, brings to the election, the Presidential "attitude" that Bush displayed in the 2000 election... that confident, full speed ahead, attitude that makes Americans wanna salute the flag. That's probably what gets the support of the "conservatives" like my office friend. They like the BigDaddy, "I'm gonna protect you and kick the butt of anyone who means to harm you" sort. Obama pushes right up to the edge of that without going into the Bush-bravado, swagger, flightsuit thing W did on Mission Accomplished Day.
So, it's interesting to note two things. One, A Democrat will win the election and it will probably be either a woman or a black if it's between Clinton and Obama. I predict a Clinton-Obama ticket and, therefore, BOTH will win. The question now is which order, Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton?
(Note: I use the term "conservative" to describe those who claim to be conservative because nowadays, they are not really conservative in the politically, historical sense of the word. Matt, you have a great way of defining this and I'll leave it to you to make your point. anyway, today's "conservatives" are not really conservative in the Goldwater sense of the word. Back then, they truely wanted less federal government and more local and state control. They wanted decisions made at a local level based on the "majority rule". The problem is, that doesn't work any more. Our problems today are global and international. Trying to solve them one state at a time isn't going to work anymore. More about this later... Today's conservative movement is really a mixture of fiscal tightwads, sometime libertarians, social/sexual repressives, ignorant, poorly educated or informed, well meaning social protectionists, lead by power and money hungry self promoters. There's little that really conservative in the movement that was there in 1980. The only thing conservative about the movement today is their use of the label "conservative". Matt you have some really excellent thoughts on this. Please share them!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)