We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights among these the right to life, libery and pursuit of happiness. Hmmm.....I guess Thomas Jefferson wrote these words cause they sounded nice. Fact: The Founding Fathers did believe in a higher power.
Bush supporters need to stop worrying about whether people think they're dumb or not. I'm not talking about intelligence- I'm talking about ignorance. A large percentage of people support Bush because they're misinformed on sociopolitical issues. The Dems need to do a better job on outreach and education.
Which sociopolitical issues are these Bush supporters voting on? How are they misinformed? The Republican ascendance in the USA is founded on one issue: abortion. People understand that the fetus is a future person. Ignorance on the link between Iraq and AQ is a different story and emanates from a Bush Admin disinformation campaign.
Seems you're misinformed. It's a hell of a lot more than abortion. What-you've never met any rednecks? Sunday's-for-church people? Marriage is between a man-and-a-woman folk?
Yes, I work with them every day. Dumb as dirt, generally. They usually vote in direct opposition to their own interests, because they believe what Karl Rove tells them, and like George Strait says "They don't know the difference between Iraq and Iran". Hint; Iraq is the one where GWB is sending their kids to die in for no discernable reason. But hey, vote away; at least ya know what he stands fur....
I go to church every Sunday with these people. I grew up and my whole extended family is still from the Bible belt of western Michigan where megachurches, home-schoolers, and religious conservatism abounds. Many of them are single issue voters, plain and simple. I realize that the whole family values thing of James Dobson is more than abortion, but that issue drove this trend and still does. Without abortion at the core, this movement would never have culminated in the Religious Right.
'catly Hilarious Kerry at a NASCAR race, Kerry at a redneck rural bar, Kerry at a pro-family rally, Kerry at a Mormon Church is just plain out-of-place If you've been around America you know what I mean. Despite a crushing economy and a lost cause in Iraq, there's not a state outside the hammered Midwest, the Northeast, or the far West that Kerry won http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults
I agree it's a part of it. But conservative issues have always been there in the Deep South since at least before the Civil War. Not one Deep South state went Kerry.
Wrong. Roe v. Wade came in 1973. Nixon's Southern Strategy came in 1968. Aside for the issue itself, as a Democrat, my most fervent wish, above all others, is that the GOPs actually overturn Roe v. Wade. If they do that, the Dems will have an ascendancy like they had in 1932. The problem isn't that Dems think the fetus isn't a person, the problem is that they think a black man is a person.* With all due respect to the many, many GOPers who aren't racist, look at a friggin' timeline. This is when the South went red.
Nice strawman. But anyway, I consider the pilgrims more or less irrelelvant when you're talking about American political institutions. Now, you may have a point if you're taling about American society at large. Whatever, it's besides the point. I see you conveniently did not mention Thomas Jefferson. Now, the Founding Fathers varied on their level of belief and how much influence religion should have. Jefferson was the most outspoken on the dangers of religion and politics intersecting too much. Yeah, the quotes you cite do show that the Founding Fathers were quite religious and that their supposed agnosticism is highly overstated. They also believed in the importance of religion and that god ultimately governed all things, including politics. But that doesn't mean they weren't smart enough to simply base their politics and the Constitution on religious doctrine.
Bush supporters are misinformed regarding abortion, in that they do not understand that voting Republican will actually increase the number of abortions performed, and not decrease the number. As the poverty level goes up and Family planning type social programs eliminated, the number of abortions will increase. http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats_2.htm Just one example of how they do not get the big picture about...anything.
I'm not so sure. I used to think it would split the republican party between the libertarian wing and the "cultural" "conservative" wing, but I think the libertarian repubs would just suck it up for tactical purposes. They would outlaw abortions in the US, but still be able to travel for them abroad, so it won't be that big of a deal.
I'm not talking about the deep south, where my view is that religion is extraordinarily linked to patriotism. I'm talking about Missouri, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Colorado. These are not conservative states in all respects. Take abortion off the table and even a terrible candidate like Kerry, who ran a terrible campaign with no message, would be winning some of those states (and in Wisconsin, where a liberal Russ Feingold was reelected, winning comfortably). To me, if the democrats can't see this, the Republicans are on there way to 60 senators in some future election, barring economic depression.
First of all, that's an Allan Jackson tune. And the complete line is 'I watch CNN but I'm not sure I could tell you the difference in [sic] Iraq and Iran.' (pronounced EYE-rock and EYE-ran). You clearly don't understand them. Many of them would probably call voting for a Senator who voted for the war as an act of protest against the President who wanted the war 'dumb as dirt'. Since this is quickly turning into an anti-Southern thing, would any liberals care to explain why the Hispanic vote turned on them? Are they 'dumb as dirt' as well? I'm guessing they were sophisticated when they went your way in 2000?
It's true when you look at the time line, but the missing piece of the formula for Nixon were the evangelicals-what Reagan expolited. That's a crucial part that a pro-life position on abortion clearly is central to. I think you have to link these two parts to create the GOP that we see today. I don't think the Nixon strategy by itself could have pushed the GOP to where it is today. So, you have to as what issue galvanized the religous right-I think it's clear.
While very stereotypical, I think Gringo's attitude towards the ill-informed and unintelligent has some validity to it. The Big Red machine has been able to successfully win such votes by a) focusing on clear, emotional issues of faith (god hates gays) b) building clear strawmen that paint the opponent as bad, wimpy, communist, out-of-touch, etc c) obfuscating real issues, news and analysis. Wrong. Educating people is hard, and a constant process. People don't like it too much. Heck, most of us watch the worst tv shows imaginable. Work 8-10 hours, then learn? Not gonna happen. Instead, recognize how to sway and manipulate the uninformed, the simple, whatever. Isn't that how democrats consistently win poor urban areas - by constantly repeating the simple message that republicans is rich white folks trying to keep you poor? That's hardly a sophisticated or intelligent argument. Educating is hard. Manipulating is easy. Control the message. Don't assume facts can speak for themselves (ie, missing explosives, Iraq bodycount). Twist and use facts for your purpose. Control the message, force-feed it to those who make up the 30-80% of the intelligence scale. And don't for one minute feel guilty about it. It always has been the key to power, in a democracy or anywhere else.
The private reflection of various politicians is not remotely evidence to support an assertion they wanted religion in politics.
Or distance yourself from such potentially divisive issues. (it's more pro-life than it is anti-gay, but go ahead and keep your head in the sand). Once upon a time pro-life did not = Republican. Either be the anti-war party or distance yourself from the part of your party that is knee-jerk anti-war. ANY war. (hollywood?) I think both parties have this one down.
Certain liberal groups believe that they are inherently more intelligent--that they have a right to run the country (or have it run by like-minded individuals). The base of the current Republican party is rural. Marginally less educated than the national average, but that's a straw man, since the urban base of the Democratic Party often relies on poorer and less educated individuals as well. What liberal Democrats don't understand is why they are hated by Middle America. They tend to believe that it is because these people are ignorant and therefore just doing what someone tells them. The real reason is that Middle Americans are fiercely opposed to perceived outsiders telling them what is right and wrong, especially on moral issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious observance. These outsiders are the secularists that believe they "know better" than Middle Americans, and that their secular church is superior to a religious church. Middle Americans hate that. They hate it when people try to act superior. They also admire the qualities that urban liberals despise: liberals despise W because he acts decisively, without consulting them or the UN. That he takes action when they would prefer to seek more data. That he believes in right and wrong. Middle Americans believe the UN can't get anything done (which is true), so if they won't do something, ignore them and go do it. To them, John Kerry is weak and vacillating--the worst sort of leader. Even Howard Dean would be more palatable for Middle America. As one friend noted, "At least I would know where Dean stands. I disagree with him, but he has firm beliefs and he'll act on them." Of course, to some that supported Kerry, the Senator is "nuanced" and "thoughtful." Let me summarize that: the reasons the urban liberal elite hates Bush so fiercely are the very reasons he was just reelected. I'm not saying that all people that voted for Kerry are stupid. I'm not saying W is the greatest president ever. As someone from a highly educated and very religious family of mostly educators in central CA that consistently splits its vote, I run into people of many different backgrounds and political views. Those that don't personally know (and respect) several people that voted for different candidates for different reasons cannot understand why things happened the way they did. Personal Disclosure: I voted in three races that included officially endorsed candidates. I voted for Bush. After checking all the candidates listed on the ballot (there were seven) and Ralph Nader, Bush represented my views acceptably. Not very well, but better than anyone else. (My second choice was John Kerry. My third choice was Mickey Mouse.) I voted for Bill Jones for U.S. Senate. This was a protest vote. I think Boxer's out of touch with reality. (Or at least my view of it.) Jones wasn't great, so it was a tougher choice than it should have been. Unsurprisingly, she won handily. I voted for Armas (D) for the state assembly. His race was even less competitive. Essentially, I each of my selections lost. (While Bush won the election, it wasn't especially close in CA, so in that sense, my vote for him wasn't successful.)
Finally, a map showing where the smart people are located has finally been published. Apparently intelligence flocks to water.
In 1972 Nixon won every state except Massachusetts. That's a pretty small missing piece for Reagan to exploit there, kid. Anyway, the South turned red when the Dems rejected American apartheid. that's an incontrovertible fact, made all the more remarkable when you remember that in 1960, there were damn few black voters in the South, and now, they dominate the Dem. electorate. White people, darn close to unanimously, shifted allegiance between 1960 and 1972.
Well IMO the Dems oughta start talking about the South. Last 2 Prez's were from Georgia and Arkansas. JFK only won with LBJ's help. Dukakis from Massachussets, Mondale from Minnesota were crushed. Kerry couldn't beat a guy who got us in Iraq, lost jobs, and has run the biggest deficit in history. That's saying something.