The radicalization of the Republican base?
For Reagan-era Republican official and Forbes columnist Bruce Bartlett has a new post on his website titled "Why I'm not a Republican."
It's a fairly caustic broadside:
"I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid."
He's reacting to a poll commissioned by the DailyKos website but conducted by the independent pollster, Research 2000.
Put bluntly, the survey found that a significant plurality of self-identified Republicans believe nutty stuff:
Barack Obama should be impeached (39%), Obama is a socialist (63%), Obama is a foreigner masquerading as an American (42%).
When asked if the President "wants the terrorists to win," 57% either said Yes or they weren't sure. (Only 43% rejected the notion outright.)
An astonishing number of Republicans think Mr. Obama "is a racist and hates white people" (23%) or they're "not sure" (33%). (Only 36% reject the notion outright.)
First, I'll make my opinion crystal clear: These views are nuts, bonkers, indefensibly ludicrous.
This is the kind of static that prevents a real and fundamental debate about the hard choices facing America.
Take the most common (and arguably least offensive) conservative attack, that Mr. Obama is a socialist.
In fact, Mr. Obama's agenda falls well within the mainstream of American politics.
At various times, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush (to name two examples) embraced "big government" ideas every bit as ambitious as those of Mr. Obama.
In the 1970s, Mr. Nixon set price controls on gasoline; in the 2000s, Mr. Bush created a vast new centralized education program (No Child Left Behind) and a prescription drug entitlement that cost taxpayers more than $50 billion.
We're they socialists? No. We're their ideas good ones. That's open to debate.
There is, as I've written repeatedly, plenty to dispute in Mr. Obama's policies. In many cases, I'm sure, there are sound, sensible alternatives.
But a political movement that embraces this kind of hysteria is, by its nature, self-limiting.
Americans want answers, good government, policies that improve their lives, and not conspiracy theories.
In the end, these views aren't a problem for Democrats.
They're a problem for Republicans who at some point will recapture the White House and a majority in Congress.
Then they'll have to actually govern.
Can they lead the nation if their base is convinced that liberals are enemies of America and Democrats (the insidious "Democrat Party") are villains out of central casting?
posted by Brian Mann @ 2/03/2010 11:35:00 AM
65 Comments
65 Comments:
I've had issues with a lot of what Obama's done and not done. I didn't vote for him. And I'm not a Democrat. But some of this stuff is breathtaking. It's one thing to disagree with his policies or wonder if they will really benefit Americans (I do).
But for a huge chunk of Republicans to think he does or might want the terrorists to win? That he does or might hate white people.
And people wonder why the GOP is in such dire straits even despite the Democrats' lameness.
at times i feel that this "country" will not work until each state is in fact it's own country, and people gravitate to the corners that suit them. then that in time will fail too.
there is a universal theme here:
things that get too big, tend to crumble. no matter what ayn rand says, or what color pandora's people are, or who's in charge- the good, bad, or ugly- the earth is destined to shake us off it's back like the fleas we are. we have reached critical mass .
pouplation
government
economies
civilizations
all fall to simple and direct matters of sustainability.
sadly i feel we are at the end of our road.
Anonymous - It's interesting that you say that because another remarkably common sentiment among Republicans is that the United States should be broken up.
A concept that would have been viewed as radically unpatriotic by American conservatives a generation ago is now embraced by 23% of Republicans.
Another 19% say they're "not sure" whether or not their state should secede from the United States.
Here's a troubling question:
How do Republicans lead when 42% of their base aren't convinced they want to be Americans?
--Brian, NCPR
"First, I'll make my opinion crystal clear: These views are nuts, bonkers, indefensibly ludicrous.
This is the kind of static that prevents a real and fundamental debate about the hard choices facing America."
Really, then why to you post this rubbish. This is not the kind of post I expect to see at NCPR.
Or maybe it is what I should be expecting?
"Americans want answers, good government, policies that improve their lives, and not conspiracy theories."
Well, yes, except for the 20% of Americans who want conspiracy theories.
Anyway, this is proof that Limbaugh and Beck are just entertainers and have nothing at all to do with shaping the political opinions of listeners.
I recently exchanged curbside greetings with a neighbor, an elderly man who has always been pleasant & cordial. Abruptly, our conversation (about training dogs) pivoted. "Someone better do something about the one that's running this country," he suddenly barked. Startled, I tried a chuckle: "Hold on, you're talking to an Obama voter." Clenching his fists, he retorted: "Well, it's time someone took that Marxist out."
As I began to back up and he began to quote the Constitution (yes!), his wife dashed up to apologize: "All he does, all day, is sit and watch that Fox news channel. That's where he gets this stuff."
My wakeup call: it's not enough to just turn off the television. This stuff is absolutely toxic, our body politic is seriously infected, and we need it stopped.
Differing political views are normal and good. They should produce healthy debate. THIS is something else. It is not good and not healthy.
Re-read those statistics Brian quoted. Then get the list of Fox sponsors and make absolutely sure that you (and they) don't enable the spread of this poisonous stuff.
http://www.debone.com/boycottFoxNewsSponsors.html
Some thoughts:
It isn't just Conservative Republicans who have some wacky notions. I've heard equally nutty conspiracy theories from the left.
Nor is it limited to national politics. Just yesterday I was treated by the owner of a business I had just patronized to a tirade about local government and how Potsdam and Cantons were disgraceful blots on the map.
Unreasoned anger seems to be in fashion. Don't listen, don't think, just get mad.
Should give this Atlantic post a read. It explains why there really isn't any such thing as bipartisanship:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/why_bipartisanship_cant_work.php#more
"Bipartisanship in the American sense means compromising on legislation so that a sufficient number of members of Congress from BOTH parties will support it, even if (as is typically the case) a few majority party members defect and most minority party members don't join. Bipartisanship consists of getting ENOUGH members of the minority party to join the (incomplete) majority in voting for major legislation. It can't happen if the minority party members vote as a block against major legislation. And that can happen only if the minority party has the ability to discipline its ranks so that none join the majority, which is the unprecedented situation we've got in Congress today."
"A concept that would have been viewed as radically unpatriotic by American conservatives a generation ago is now embraced by 23% of Republicans."
A generation ago? Try a few years ago...
"I've heard equally nutty conspiracy theories from the left."
Yes, but those theorists don't hold the party's purity tests in their hands. And anyway, which theories are you talking about? If you're talking about the Free Mumia fringe, you're not talking about the same thing as Limbaugh nation.
Anon, so you don't think that it's nuts and bonkers for a huge chunk of Republicans to say that the president wants the terrorists to win?
I'm no Obama fan nor a Democrat as I mentioned above but calling crap like this nuts is a hugely restrained on Brian M's part. I'd be more inclined to use words like vile, toxic or despicable. When one says the president wants our country destroyed, I can't think of any lesser way to describe it.
Brian M, as someone who prefers trying to forget consensus, I find this all very discouraging for the future. There are too many powerful people who have a lot vested (financially and/or otherwise) in prolonging divisionism.
When the future of the nation is dependent on the willingness to work with people with differing viewpoints or to advocate such a course of action of people like Nancy Pelosi and Glenn Beck, there's little room for optimism.
Elaine, so we should only support free speech when it is what you or I want to hear? I am sorry, and yes some of their stuff is ridiculous much of that is for entertainment not news, but some of it is real news that you can’t get other places. For example the crazy stuff going on at ACORN. FOX covered that; the NY Times only covered it when the undercover cameraman was arrested in New Orleans in a totally unrelated matter months later. You can’t get more biased than that. Both stories were front page news at FOX. I listen to FOX, I listen to NPR, I read the NY Times and the NY Post. I can filter it all myself. I don't need your help or your boycott. Thanks but no thanks. Just avoid your kooky neighbor and watch and listen to whatever suits you.
hope it's not too off topic, but what party came up with the emergency green card status for hatians so they can send us dollars out of the country. what party or parties thought this a good idea, and how does that help our current condition? left, right,middle or all three? - this clearly shows me i want another choice. somebody needs to invent a new form of government, the one we use now went spoiled quite some time ago..
To Anonymous, So we want people here to be compassionate and send aid to Haiti but we don't want Haitians living here to be able to work for and earn money to send home? I suppose they should just go back and add to the burden of the disaster?
Also, people who listen to FOX tend to be more conservative and folks who listen to NPR tend to be more liberal. That isn't new news. Rush Limbaugh, Amy Goodman both sides have their entertainers. More people just tune into one more than the other. And both sides think their "entertainer" is laying it out straight for them. It is too bad they buy it on both sides. The opposition party has always been the more "noisy" side, BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED! I haven't yet seen the bumper stickers personally attacking Obama that I saw for Bush, but I assume they are coming. It is nothing new. It seems like some people like to dish it out but they can't seem to take it. If you want President Obama in for another 3 or 7 years you better get used to it. Brace yourself, I imagine that it is going to get a lot worse. Like the opposing side during the Bush years these people plan to win come the next election. Welcome to America! Conservatives didn't start this.
Paul 3:00 pm, In reference to the ACORN sting videos said: "the NY Times only covered it when the undercover cameraman was arrested in New Orleans in a totally unrelated matter months later. You can’t get more biased than that."
A search at NYTimes.com for "ACORN, O'Keefe" turns up more than 700 articles and blog posts dating back to the day the ACORN videos broke. Most of them date from before the recent arrest of O'Keefe at Sen. Landieu's office.
Only got a couple minutes before heading back out but I'll give you a couple thoughts- People think Obama wants the terrorists to win? What are we to think when he said he would side with Islam on multiple occasions? People think he hates white people? What else are we to think when he makes racist comments and writes in his book about preferring his black side rather than his white side because of people like his grandmother? People think their state should secede from the rest of the country and you have the freakin NERVE to say they don't want to be Americans? Who died and left YOU in charge Brian, to determine what an American is? Did it occur that those people take the view that YOU are decidedly UNAMERICAN? Did it occur that some people are just completely fed up with taxes, political correctness and socialists? Because a good deal of what YOU think of as perfectly normal, mainstream thought is SOCIALISM. So was what Bush and Nixon and FDR did.
Sometimes it makes me physically ill to see what some of you "right thinking American progressives" consider normal. I'm extremely disappointed and more than a little disgusted with this post you made Brian. Consider where some of the fear these people exhibit comes from- from the same progressive thought process that comes from people who some how claim Bill Ayers is a hero instead of a murdering terrorist.
Dale,
Thanks. Maybe they both covered it better than I thought. I never saw anything on the front page of the Times till I read about New Orleans last week (or a few weeks ago). But you are right I suggest that folks go to both sites and do a search to see the difference in coverage it is interesting and I think it supports my point. You can't try and tell me that these two news organizations cover the same stories or have the same angles. Why do so many comments on the left hate fox and so many comments on the right hate the NY Times?
Paul--
My quick search says nothing about how the Times covered the story, or about placement in the paper. I'm going to guess that it got much less prominence in the Times, at least initially, than at FOX. This may be a difference in editorial POV, but the fact that NY Times is print and FOX is TV may have more to do with it.
Initially, the videos themselves were the story, and they really did have to be seen to be believed. All TV outlets love "hot tape." Writing about video content is just nowhere near as engaging.
I only got 527 hits but that is still a bunch. In fact the second NY Times hit is the article I saw in the Politics section of the NY Times on the 27th:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28landrieu.html?scp=2&sq=ACORN,%20O%27Keefe&st=cse
The 3rd hit is a sept 2009 article from the Times Topic section highlighting the work that acorn does.
You better take a closer look at the results of your search. Can you email me a few links to NY Times articles (real stories) that covered the "earlier ACORN matters"?
Now look at FOX. over 22,000 hits. The top hits are recent stories regarding what was going on in New Orleans's. I think the bias I describe is obvious if you look at the results of the search. And FOX has not avoided the news from New Orleans, so you can't say they are siding with O'Keefe.
How many Progressives, Liberals, and Democrats thought George W. had something to do with the 911 bombings?
It goes both ways.
By the way, I am not bothered by the "Republican" or "conservative" label, just as Brian promotes himself as "progressive" but not liberal or Democrat.
Those labels have no meaning anymore.
The election of Scott Brown has meaning. And future elections will be determined by unlabeled individuals along the WHOLE of the political spectrum.
So, toss around the archaic labels if you must. They have no meaning, anymore.
As for your last comment.. Dale, please, you and I both know that the NY Times has some of the best writers out there. If they had the interest in writing a story about what went on in those ACORN offices they could have done it easily. I listen to your radio station and you guys do a good job without the video. That is just a cop out. You don't need to defend the NY Times. But bring it on. On don't want to send any comments in that are inaccurate.
Paul--
The default search at NYTimes onle looks at the last 30 days. That gives 527 results. You have to extend the search back to September 2009 to catch the initial articles. Unfortunately, they are not sorted by date, so it makes the initial coverage hard to sort out. The earliest I find is Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, Favored Foe from 9/15.
Brian Mann,
Not all of the poll results are ludricrous. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all should have been impeached. All have used signing statements where they sign a piece of legislation, but then issue a statement saying they won't enforce aspects of that legislation. There is a direct violation of the principle of the seperation of branches. If the president disagrees with legislation he should veto.
Choosing to ignore the law is an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress' authority. Any president who does this should, in my view, be impeached.
Of course, I doubt many of the poll respondents know what signing statements are, much less view them as grounds to impeach Obama.
Socialism is a vague term that means different things to different people. Some people think support of the income tax, the regulatory state, and the welfare state are socialism. That's npt ludricrous it's just their point of view. In truth there is spectrum of capitalism and socialism and most people and countries fit somewhere on that spectrum. Obama, like Bush and Nixon, has a combination of socialist and capitalist beliefs. Whether or not that combination leans toward socialism or capitalism is a matter of opinion. And then of course, there are those who believe Obama moderates his true beliefs and is in his heart of hearts a socialist. We really don't know Obama's true beliefs.
All this being said, I think Bruce Bartlett usually has perceptive columns unlike most the partisan pundits on the left and right.
Paul--
I am not one to sing the praises of NY TImes neutrality. Your initial claim that there was no coverage until the New Orleans incident caught my eye because I am a web geek, and this was a claim that was easy to investigate without moving my rump from in front of my twin flat-screen monitors.
As a result, the discussion has moved from whether the NY Times covered the story at all (they did) to whether they covered it appropriately, a question open to fruitful debate.
But I was not being disengenuous, and was not defending not Times, when I asserted the importance of "hot tape" in how a story gets prominence and editorial attention. Yes, you can talk or write about the videos--but there is no substitute for showing them, then talking about them.
Here's an example of how this works in radio. We have spent a huge amount of air in the last few months talking about the NY budget crisis and its impact on North Country pocketbooks. But what is the number 6 of more than 2000 NCPR story of the last twelve months--a Heard Up North audio featuring the voice of a Korean restaurant owner in Watertown. It had virtually no news value, but the audio was engaging. We could have provided a verbatim transcript of that segment instead and it would have received zero traffic.
Dale,
I don't think that anyone can argue that one media source these days covers a very broad range of topics. That is why I try and follow a bunch. Media outlets have to follow stories that are interesting, and that their readers (or listeners) want to read (hear). So folks on NCPR want to hear about a guy in Watertown, so be it. One suggestion I have for you is to come up with some other format for your news blog. maybe some sort of organizational changes. In here you have some pretty newsworthy (for lack of a better term I am not to judge) stories that folks probably want to follow and discuss for some time. But you also have stuff like a you tube video of a fox catching a mouse that Brian thought was pretty cool. It was totally cool, I am glad he posted it. I sent the link to a bunch of people. But I just hate to see some things pushing other things down too quickly. Just mt 2 cents.
Sorry, one more suggestion. It seems like there is very little discussion under the news stories and lots of discussion in the news blog. Maybe there is a way to improve that. I assume those are the real stories that have had more work put into them. You should try and foster discussion there.
Adirondackblackbearwatcher,
We know what signing statements are. I know you are probably much more informed than we are but I think many people are familiar with what they are. As for their constitutionality I will have to defer to you and the Supreme Court I guess. I can give you a local example of a similar thing. When an environmental group (I forget which one right now) threatened to sue the state over the designation of parts of Lowes Lake as Primitive rather than Wilderness the DEC commissioner sent them a letter. In it he said that even though the governor had signed it into law his agency would ignore that designation and “manage” it as a Wilderness anyway. There is a “reverse signing statement” for you. Now that was a story that should have gotten more coverage. “DEC Commissioner Snubs Governor; says “his” agency will ignore NYS Law”.
"To Anonymous, So we want people here to be compassionate and send aid to Haiti but we don't want Haitians living here to be able to work for and earn money to send home? I suppose they should just go back and add to the burden of the disaster?"
yup. charity begins at home- so go back home to do your charity then. if you are here and need a green card then your not here legally. so put the money down and go home where they need you. you'll only be a burden if you go home and not help. there's alot of rubble to clean up- start there, and you should not expect money for that "compassion".
who are we that we need to fund the world's problems. and i don't wan't this country to be compassionate. i want this country to rebuild what is broken here not there, and i want this country to fix what's broken here with our citizens help/work/money. and i want u.s. dollars to stay in the u.s.
Any Hatians sending money to the Crown Point Bridge fund?
Patriotic Hatians should be on their way home to re-build their contry, not here taking capitol out of our country.
...But who will milk our cows?
The Guatamalens.
"Elaine said...
I recently exchanged curbside greetings with a neighbor, an elderly man who has always been pleasant & cordial. Abruptly, our conversation (about training dogs) pivoted. "Someone better do something about the one that's running this country," he suddenly barked. Startled, I tried a chuckle: "Hold on, you're talking to an Obama voter." Clenching his fists, he retorted: "Well, it's time someone took that Marxist out."
As I began to back up and he began to quote the Constitution (yes!)..."
Imagine the nerve of someone quoting the Constitution! Why the an must be mad! I certainly hope you called the police and reported this incident. What kind of kook goes around quoting the Constitution?!! Why the the next thing you know he'll start spouting off that he believes the document actually means something and that the Bill of Rights is an important document too!!!!
What a wing nut! And no Elaine, I don't mean your neighbor.
Did your husband tell him to put the beer down elaine?
No Pete, but he's not a foul mouthed buffoon who doesn't know what a curse word is either. If you wish to make snide comments while trying to appear intelligent at least address the correct party.
your right, i meant to adress you.
what was foul mouthed?
snide yes, bafoon no.
toughen up Helen.
Elaine- i appologize. read fast and responded fast. i will try to do better so as not to upset the (fenwick's) status qou.
it seems like the fenwicks make alot of assumptions. on that alone i'm assuming that your neighbor ain't so bad....
me, i got goats to tend.
On the KOS page we find:
"The Daily Kos Republican Poll was conducted by Research 2000 from January 20 through January 31, 2010."
The same company that did this poll for the special Senate election in Mass.
http://tiny.cc/XYSNG
Calling the Research 2000 election poll less than accurate would be being generous. Always interesting to see how people accept without question information that supports their world view.
My wife has been a loyal Republican for 40 years. She's seriously considering leaving the GOP because she feels the party is slowly being taken over by paranoid, selfish right wing extremeist kooks.
"..insane or mind-numbingly stupid..." I would apply the same description to anyone who would place much credence in a poll that, by the shear absurdity of its results invalidates itself. A poll commissioned by the Daily Kos, no less. This is hardly news and doesn't bear further commentary.
Still waiting for a response Brian- just who died and gave you the right to determine what is and isn't an American quality? If some one has an opinion that runs counter to yours it's ludicrous and not worthy of debate/ What an open minded socialist you are.
I really thought you were trying Brian, really. I thought you were beyond the simple minded garbage. This is a giant slap in the face.
Thanks for letting me know you are exactly what I thought you were- just another NPR yes man writing liberal garbage and discounting any but the progressive view.
Sorry, Bret - missed your earlier post.
Here are some responses:
1. "People think Obama wants the terrorists to win? What are we to think when he said he would side with Islam on multiple occasions?"
I'm not sure what quotes you're referring to here, but a) Islam is not terrorism and b) saying Mr. Obama would 'side with Islam' is hardly a wink at the idea of wanting terrorists to win.
Again, I'll say it bluntly: The proposition that our commander in chief wants Americans to die at the hands of terrorists is nutty.
2. "People think he hates white people? What else are we to think when he makes racist comments and writes in his book about preferring his black side rather than his white side because of people like his grandmother?"
Mr. Obama, who as you say, is himself the product of a mixed-race marriage, has never spoken or acted in ways that give any credence to the idea that he 'hates white people.' Again, it's nutty. Sorry, but it is.
It's fine, of course, to debate affirmative action policy, or immigration, or voting rights, any of the other issues that connect with racial tension.
But to suggest that Mr. Obama hates white people is flat-earther stuff.
3. "People think their state should secede from the rest of the country and you have the freakin NERVE to say they don't want to be Americans? Who died and left YOU in charge Brian, to determine what an American is?"
People who want to break up the United States are, by definition, wanting to be something other than American. Texan or Confederate or Alaskan -- or whatever. Do I view that stance as unpatriotic and (again) nutty? Yes, I do. In this, my views are essentially those of a Lincoln-era Republican.
4. "Did it occur that those people take the view that YOU are decidedly UNAMERICAN? Did it occur that some people are just completely fed up with taxes, political correctness and socialists? Because a good deal of what YOU think of as perfectly normal, mainstream thought is SOCIALISM."
Yes, I'm aware that some conservatives view policies that have been common in the United States since the early 1900s -- policies espoused by politicians as varied as Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman - as socialist and outside the mainstream. But if the American political consensus has been clear for a century and more -- on things like social security, medicare, and civil rights -- then I think the mainstream has simply changed.
5. "Sometimes it makes me physically ill to see what some of you "right thinking American progressives" consider normal. I'm extremely disappointed and more than a little disgusted with this post you made Brian."
Remember first that my post began with the commentary of a former Reagan White House official.
It's also worth noting that on most of these issues (not all) a plurality of Republicans disagree with you.
I'll close with this:
In my post I made it clear that Mr. Obama's policies warrant scrutiny, debate, even fierce opposition.
What I do question -- and I stand by this -- is the hysterical tone, the venom, and sheer nuttiness of so many of these fears.
--Brian, NCPR
Brian,
Think back a few years to the days when there were signs and bumper stickers all around (at least where I live) personally and politically attacking George Bush. It seems to me that these "venom and nutty fears" have prevailed for sometime now. The tide has just shifted. You can't argue that Bush and his policies were less vehemently gone after. The only difference was that many on the left shared the view of the attackers.
"It seems to me that these "venom and nutty fears" have prevailed for sometime now. The tide has just shifted."
I'm rubber you're glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
The winnah, and still champion....!
I will leave it at this Brian. I think you're nuts. I think you discount whatever you don't want to see of hear and read more into things when it suits your purpose. I think you have definite socialist tendencies that color your view (rural whites=evil racists idiots that shouldn't be able to vote). I'm sure if I had the money I could conduct a survey that would give me exactly the results I wanted it to. The poll you base this on is suspect from the word go and is better left on left wing nut job websites like the Kos than here where someone might mistake it for actual newsworthy research instead of socialist fear mongering propaganda, which is all it is.
Bret - No fair. Engage what I've said.
No one said anything about rural whites or the ability to vote.
That kind of strawman stuff is beneath you.
First you agree with the conservative views that this poll discovered, then you argue that the poll was biased.
I'll say again:
I think it's unpatriotic and, yes, unAmerican, to want to break up the United States.
Do you disagree?
I think it's whacky to believe that the President of the United States wants terrorist jihadists to wreck America.
Do you disagree?
I think it's goofy to think that Mr. Obama is secretly a foreigner.
Do you disagree?
--Brian, NCPR
"and i want u.s. dollars to stay in the u.s."
Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.
Bret wrote: "People think their state should secede from the rest of the country and you have the freakin NERVE to say they don't want to be Americans?"
Bret. Read this. Closely. But you attacked Brian for calling you out on this.
As he already said, doesn't somebody who wants to secede from America by definition not want to be an American? I don't think it took freakin NERVE for Brian to make that statement. Just a working set of EYEBALLS.
Brian Mann,
You seem to think that because something's in the mainstream it's not socialist. Why not? Why assume socialism is a dirty word?
Fine Brain, but since when has "fair" mattered in politics?
1- You have said repeatedly that "rural whites" ( a racially charged label BTW) shouldn't have the representation they enjoy. You have used the "rural whites' term many times is a disparaging manner. You have argued they are over represented and that the system should be changed to let urban areas have a much larger representation and that "rural whites" (I read that conservative red necks) are typically racist, uneducated and incapable of making logical decisions like supporting the progressive agenda. Any time you use the "rural white" term it's in reference to political issues relating to social programs leading me to the conclusion you must think that rural whites are somehow subhuman and in need of a strong Big Brother to guide them to enlightenment.
2- I agree with some of answers in the poll, I do not agree that 50% are insane or mind numblingly stupid! My distrust of the poll is the numbers reported. Ask a question to the right people the right way and you'll get the answer you want. All it takes is getting a mailing list from the right group and you can get whatever you want. If I were to present a poll report from the NRA and Soldier of Fortune magazine showing an overwhelming number of Americans surveyed believe in the private, unlicensed ownership of flame throwers and claymore mines just how much faith would you put in it?
3- I think it's entirely reasonable to consider seceding from a union with another group of States that give no thought to the Constitution and BoR, that has no respect for that States wishes and concerns and that infringes on that States rights. It's certainly not something anyone would undertake lightly, but the fact it's even mentioned lets me know that there are many people just as frustrated as I am. If some state like North Dakota chose to secede I wouldn't be in favor of it, but I would understand their reasoning. To call them unAmerican is wrong, it's what we're becoming that's UnAmerican.
4- What is more American than the idea of "freedom"? Freedom from a tyrannical Gov't is what created this country. To many people what the Gov't has become over the past 70 years, and especially the last 25 or so, isn't America any more. When the Gov't is run by clearly corrupt politicians that don't listen or care what their charges desire or need and when they laugh at the idea of bending to the will of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and are seemingly above the law then just what else is left but talk of secession? This isn't a tiny minority that wants change. It's a large number of people on both ends of the spectrum. One group has the press, unions and the majority of Gov't under their tent. The other has the producers, the rural citizens, much of the military and many previously quiet taxpayers in it's tent. None of that is unAmerican, it's just a difference of opinion and perspective. For those on this side YOU are the unAmerican type.
The President has written of his Islamic sympathies and the question of his birthplace is still up in the air. He will never be removed, I doubt he desires the Islamists to "win" while he's in the hot seat. But I also don't believe he will ever take a hard line stance against the Islamic revolutionaries and terrorists unless he see's himself as threatened somehow.
FYI- I think it's nutty and goofy to place my trust in a first term Senator whose seat was provided by the Chicago Political machine and Daly Inc., who hangs out with murdering terrorists, attends a black radical church, refuses to provide a complete set of his records for scrutiny and who has written in his own hand of his socialist views.
Anon- I take offense when someone calls any of my views unAmerican. But I also have the backbone to add my name to my posts- whats your excuse?
"whats your excuse?"
I'm scared of black helicopters.
People who don't want to be Americans want to be Americans.
I understand now.
This explains everything. Both sides are to blame:
http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2010/02/01/this_modern_world/index.html
Here's another view of your poll Brian. Oddly, it's a little less thrilled with it than you are. I await your take with baited breath...
http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/article/daily-kos-poll-of-republicans-met-with-shock-skepticism/19343356?icid=main|main|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fthe-point%2Farticle%2Fdaily-kos-poll-of-republicans-met-with-shock-skepticism%2F19343356
Bret - Did you read the article that you linked to?
Most of the quotes basically endorse the idea that this was a legitimate and accurate poll.
Some respondents say they want context -- are Democrats and Independents equally goofy in some way?
Others suggest, without offering evidence, that the questions are loaded.
Here's the money shot, as we say in the news business:
Hutchinson and Moderate Voice's David Adesnik both pointed out that the Kos poll's results on questions about same-sex marriage and gays in the military were far different from those from recent Gallup and Pew surveys.
"But unless you have evidence that something is actually wrong with the poll, what can you possibly say? You can be suspicious of Kos, but that's not an argument," Adesnik conceded.
Finally, I'll point out again that you seem to be disputing the accuracy of the poll while largely endorsing or embracing most of the views that the poll found common among conservatives.
Is it fair to say that the poll's findings reflected many of your views pretty accurately?
--Brian, NCPR
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437
Look at the actual questions! Most of these are excluded from the article. Take this and the demographics (89% white men over 60)in context and you've got a bunch of mostly elderly self identified Republicans saying some common sense things for people their age- It's fine for women to work, marriage is an equal partnership, contraception is not abortion, etc. I see only in the South do more people think Obama is a white hater and as for your 57% think Obama wants the terrorists to win that a complete fabrication! Look at the numbers- 24% Brian, not 57%!!!!
I'm sorry Brian but both you and I should should have done a lot more research on this before posting it- You to provide the whole story and me to prevent myself wasting time on an emotional reply to something that was little more than a fabrication and twisting of a biased and rigged poll.
Once burned, twice shy. I'm very, very disappointed in you Brian, and more in myself for trusting you to provide an accurate story.
I will ignore the barn for a few minutes and give you an answer Brian-
1- Will I vote - yes
2- Who would I vote for today- undecided
3-Should Obama be impeached- no
4- Citizen- undecided, probably is.
5- Obama a socialist- yes, absolutely.
6- Wants terr to win- no, leaning towards undecided
7- ACORN- no
8- Palin more qualified- yes- but the real answer is "just as qualified".
9- Obama Racist- undecided, probably in some respects.
10-Believe my state should secede- no
11- Congress make it easier to form and join unions- no opinion, no I guess, it seems easy now.
12-Oppose illegals- yes, they're criminals
13- Openly gay serve- a lukewarm no.
14- Same sex marriage- if you change the wording to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage (ie- civil union) then yes.
15- Gay couples recv Federal/State funding- no more than anyone else
16- Openly gay teach- yes as long as it's treated like religion and not discussed. Let the kids make up their own minds.
17- Sex ed- yes, at appropriate age, high school not in 2nd grade.
18- Genesis taught in schools- No, but don't outright discount the possibility of intelligent design. No proof either way. There are things in this world we can't understand or comprehend.
19- Marriage equal- Absolutely, as long as my wife allows it!
20- Contraceptives outlawed- of course not!
21- The pill abortion- no
22- Abortion murder- yup, but sometimes you have to make the tough choice early on to save the Mom. Tough to live with.
23-Death penalty- Yes in theory, in practice it's too expensive.
24- Women work- Yes. She better 'cuz we can't make on my salary.
25- Salvation through Christ- no, many roads to whatever salvation is to the individual.
That's a little more in depth than all conservatives are "nuts" isn't it? You didn't look at the actual poll before making to blog post, did you?
61% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand or aren't sure he didn't. Hence, most Democrats are "Truthers"!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance
Now, do you want some context with that or not? That's linked from the article you imply I never read. The question are loaded to an extent- Palin more qualified? They don;t offer "just as qualified" so that's a question that is flawed and loaded. Same with the Salvation question, for those who don't believe in an after life then the question is moot.
You labeled an entire group, half the voting public more or less, as "nuts" based on a story on part of a poll. I'm sorry but I find that unacceptable.
I will apologize for my lack of written communication skills. I find when I reread my posts several hours later that I often
fail to get my point across clearly. Lotsa stuff rattling around in my head, sometimes it comes out jumbled. My feet are warmer now, back to the barn...
Pete, the word is "buffoon, not "baffoon". I apologize if you took offense to my beer comment but normally when I'm around people using the "F" word, the "A" word, etc they've had a couple too many. If that's your way, fine, but it might be better served to save it for someplace where kids and women aren't visitors.
As I was reading thru these comments I new you would get the response you were hoping for and low and behold Bret appeared --Why would you question Brian's blog on the poll? He was reporting the poll numbers not an opinion. I saw the interview with the fellow who did the poll and thought he was a crack pot at first but much to my shock it was true! .....Hey guys it is what it is, love to call them wingnuts but Brian will scold me,so I won't.....
Brian what part of 'the poll is propoganda' don't you understand?
If you want to understand the poll better, here's an explanation from Research 2000:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/6/833471/-How-a-poll-is-conducted
I don't know if I would use the term propaganda, but it seems it was skewed to start with.
Post a Comment
<< Home