1
   

The genie of power and the bottle of restraint.

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:05 pm
Here's another Thomas speaking (very well indeed) on the related matters...
Quote:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17982

My fervent wish is that these fellows will continue towards extremism to the point where it becomes increasingly clear to most what it is they are really up to. As Krugman notes today, Bush's popularity is now the lowest of any second term president on record.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:39 pm
blatham wrote:
As Krugman notes today, Bush's popularity is now the lowest of any second term president on record.

Good. I guess he won't be elected for a third term then. Confused Thanks for the link though!
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 04:52 pm
Perhaps I'm misguided but when I hear "Bush's numbers are low" I never think it refers to Bush specifically but to his administration as a whole.

He may not be able to run again but if his numbers are low it could signal that people are getting a bit nervous about how weirdly intrusive the government seems to be these days.

If the administration continues to court the Christian extremists you may very well get your wish, blatham.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 07:21 pm
Why then, the complete 360 by Hillary, whose staff never misses a chance to brag about her long-time efforts as a Sunday school teacher? And Howard Dean? He quotes Scripture every chance he gets LOL!

This article references a study by a Democratic think tank (Progressive Policy Institute) and what it tells me is the Dems still don't get it. It's just becoming so comical. Like leading a little kid around by the hand Smile

Quote:
Wary Democrats discover a severe 'parents gap'

An analysis by a Democratic think tank argues that Democrats are suffering from a severe "parent gap" among married people with children, who say the entertainment industry is lowering the moral standards of the country.
The study, published last week by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the policy arm of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, admonishes Democrats to pay more attention to parental concerns about "morally corrosive forces in the culture," and warns that the party will not fare better with this pivotal voting bloc until they do.

In the 2004 election, married parents supported President Bush over Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts by nearly 20 percentage points. Mr. Bush frequently talked about the importance of faith and morals in his campaign and the role that parents played in raising their children. Mr. Kerry and his party, much of whose campaign funding and political support came from liberals in the entertainment industry, rarely touched the issue.
"Democrats will not do better with married parents until they recognize one simple truth: Parents have a beef with popular culture. As they see it, the culture is getting ever more violent, materialistic, and misogynistic, and they are losing their ability to protect their kids from morally corrosive images and messages," said the study's author, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project of Rutgers University and a senior fellow at PPI.
"To be credible, Democrats must acknowledge the legitimacy of parents' beef and make it unmistakably clear that they are on the parents' side," Ms. Whitehead said.
But all too often, she said, "Democrats have been on the losing end of Republican appeals to a conservative cultural populism. Too often lately, the party does not counter these appeals but merely tries to change the subject, from cultural values to bread-and-butter issues."
Urging Democrats to change the way they look at cultural issues, the PPI report calls on party leaders to "use the bully pulpit regularly and aggressively to identify with parents' concerns and to attack the irresponsible marketeers of violence and sleaze to young kids."
It praised a campaign by Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, a Democrat, to ban the sale of violent video games to anyone younger than 18 and said Democrats had to come up with similar initiatives to take "the side of parents against the marketing of graphic sex and violence to kids."
Some Democrats, chastened by their losses in last year's elections, are beginning to test a variety of social, cultural and religious appeals that have been at the core of the Republican Party's success at the ballot box.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, has called on "people of good faith to find common ground" in the debate over abortion.
She also has praised faith-based and religious organizations for promoting abstinence, noting that polls showed "the primary reason teenage girls abstain from early sexual activity is because of their religious and moral values."
In an attempt to reach out to evangelical Christians in the Republican red states, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has been talking much more about values and "the culture," and sprinkling his attacks on Republicans with phrases from the Bible.
"We need to kick the money changers out of the temple and restore moral values to America," he said last week in Florida.
But an online survey of 11,568 Dean supporters released earlier this month by the Pew Research Center found that such religious or culturally conservative appeals may not play well with liberal Democrats.
Among the Pew findings, 38 percent of Dean supporters polled said they had no religious affiliation, compared with 11 percent of all Americans; 91 percent supported same-sex "marriage," compared with 38 percent of all Democrats; and 80 percent said they were liberals, compared with 27 percent of all Democrats.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050425-122723-8623r.htm


Honestly, judging from the above, the Democrats have a lot more to worry about than any perceptions they may have that the 'religious right' is out to take over the world. A little common sense would seem to be in order.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 08:12 pm
So exactly who is buying all of these morally ambiguous video games, movie tickets, etc?

The entertainment industry doesn't have the ability to "lower the moral standards of the country" without the consent of parents in this county.

Republicans do not have a lock on faith. Is there something wrong with non-republicans quoting scripture?

I know many Christians who support same sex marriage.

I'm going to have to go look up the study instead of relying on an article about the study.....
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 09:25 pm
boomerang wrote:
So exactly who is buying all of these morally ambiguous video games, movie tickets, etc?

The entertainment industry doesn't have the ability to "lower the moral standards of the country" without the consent of parents in this county.

Republicans do not have a lock on faith. Is there something wrong with non-republicans quoting scripture?

I know many Christians who support same sex marriage.

I'm going to have to go look up the study instead of relying on an article about the study.....


Of course there's nothing wrong with non-republicans quoting scripture. If one wants to advance the theory that the nation is somehow becoming a theocracy (and that seems to be the worry of some who've posted here) then by all means, let us give credit where credit is due and include the Sunday-school teaching Hillary and the bible-quoting Dean, though.

As for the entertainment industry, they, of course, are reactive first and foremost and cater to the consumer appetite. You'll have to ask Governor Blagojevich why he's suddenly decided maybe it isn't a good idea to market graphic violence to minors. I think I probably know the answer, but I wouldn't presume to answer for him. Smile
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 10:36 pm
JustWonders wrote:
Why then, the complete 360 by Hillary...

I think you mean 180. A 360 would point you back in the same direction you started.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 05:36 am
thomas

Your smile falls crookedly.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 06:37 am
blatham wrote:
Your smile falls crookedly.

I thought it was a good line, but was too depressed about Bush getting a second term to smile about it. (Actually, I have stolen the line from someone else on A2K, but I don't remember whom)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 06:46 am
It was a very good line. McG perhaps? He's really a lot wittier than the gunrack in his pickup would suggest.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 07:06 am
blatham wrote:
McG perhaps?

Easily possible. I agree the line sounds like a McGentricism.

As to the article you posted, I think it's a nice piece as far as it goes. But like many of the analyses Lola and you like to post, I believe it overestimates the importance of marketing and underestimates the importance of the product sold. Bill Clinton was a charismatic speaker and a great communicator, yes. But a major factor in his success was that the substance of his policies was extremely sound, to an extent that John Kerry's wasn't. As you know, I find it very depressing that George Bush has won his first term by fraudulent advertizing, and his second term by fear-mongering and flight-suit-strutting. But I find it almost as depressing how quickly Democrats seem to be forgetting that Bill Clinton was actually a very good president, and that there are votes to be gained by continuing his policies and without adopting Bush's marketing. Mr. Frank's article seems to be the latest example of this.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 07:11 am
DrewDad wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
Why then, the complete 360 by Hillary...

I think you mean 180. A 360 would point you back in the same direction you started.


You are correct. Which is exactly where she'll be after she's defeated in '08 Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 07:40 am
thomas

I do think that Clinton, in the main, was a good President. I think Blair, in the main, is a good PM too, for many of the same reasons. Not perfect, either of them, and too beholden to the dynamics and personalities who direct great wealth, but one would be imprudent to expect perfection.

Yet we do disagree and perhaps acutely as regards some of the forces which sway America and which are now in ascendence. Some of these are old aspects of American life (as Hofstadter in the fifties remarked, just following the McCarthy era, that the New Dealers had been replaced by the car dealers) and some are new alliances and organizational structures (right media, right think tanks, etc).

For me, the Clinton period tells a historical tale which future analysts will, as the other thomas suggests, work through to some clarity. Immediately upon Clinton's victory, persons organized within pre-formed structures to do whatever they might to discredit and remove his administration from office. As Coulter said at the time to Matt Drudge, "Lots of little elves are busy". Etc. You are aware of this analysis.

How influential 'soundness of policy' was in the last election (or clinton's) is pretty debateable. I think not very. A2K provides a reflection of discourse content as do the various news shows and publications which most americans tune into. To the extent that Rove and others have been able to drive wedges further into the cultural divisions to mobilize or increase their base is, to myself and that other thomas and others, the more critical factor.

No problems accrue from our disagreement here. In fact it's likely a good thing. More targets of investigation will hopefully yeild a fuller picture of the whole.

And let me just state again that though you and I frequently argue different views, I'm pleased as punch for the dilemmas and arguments you place in my cognitive path. You're a learner helper.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 10:04 am
I was unaware that Hilliary Clinton had ever held herself up as any other religion than Christian so I don't get why her teaching Sunday school would be an about-face.

Perhaps republicans should embrace her in the way I was told to embrace Condoleeza Rice.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 10:00 am
I'm reading David Halberstam's The Fifties. The Republicans have acted this way since then. The difference now is the Reagan and Bush administrations have made them more bold.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 02:22 pm
So, then, what's all the angst about? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't been able to find even one specific law that's been passed that gives the church or Christians power in government.

Those of you who are positive that we're headed for a theocracy, please show me just one.

For that matter, I also haven't been shown any facts here that prove society is now more moralistic and repressive than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

All that angst = unhealthy Smile
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 06:28 pm
Society is certainly more moralistic towards the teaching of evolution and sexual health than it was 20 to 30 years ago when I was in school.

While I can't cite any laws I can point to the Office of Faith Based and Community Inititives.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 09:58 am
Society is certainly more moralistic towards the teaching of evolution and sexual health than it was 20 to 30 years ago when I was in school.

Boomerang -- I agree with you on that one! The same people who defend intelligent design also say schools are going to hell in a handbasket. Had the intelligent design promoters been properly taught oh so many years ago, we wouldn't have to deal with this nonsense.

When I was probably in sixth grade in a Catholic elementary school, circa 1959, a student (I remember who it was) asked the nun whether it was alright to believe in evolution. She said, "As long as you believe that at some point, God breathed a soul into an ape and called him man." That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 10:06 am
This is really a thoughtful thread.

Thomas -- I've been saying for years that it is a complete contradiction for people who allegedly believe in small government to run for political office, as they need government to exist in order to fulfill their ambitions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 06:28:57