A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Bill Kristol today...

Quote:

2. There's a greater likelihood of a third-party effort against Rudy than against any of the other likely GOP nominees.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2007/10/kristol_is_rudy_the_most_elect.asp

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

The Republicans, meanwhile, appear to be in crisis since the December elections, with much mutual recrimination, scores of Congressmen throwing in the towel, and grassroots pressure groups vowing to work against the election of incumbent candidates or major presidential candidates.

Does that show an inherently more ideologically fraught state of the Republican coalition? No, I agree with you, not really. Does it give an important strategical advantage to the Democrats in this election cycle? Hell yeah, and one that could help determine the outcome... so thats relevant enough

I generally agree with that. It is however a different point from the one Blatham put forward and about which you guys have been arguing so assiduously.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

It is however a different point from the one Blatham put forward and about which you guys have been arguing so assiduously.

Well, I can only talk for myself, but the only point over which I "argued assiduously" was your odd initial ducking of a fairly simple question.

For post after post, you warded off the simple observation that intra-party divisions were playing up in the Republican Party in particular now, threats of a third party ticket and everything (or in Blatham's words, that its elements "are being increasingly forced into diverging positions due to the circumstances of likely electoral defeat and the lack of a candidate who might keep them unified"). Warded it off with submissions that "the same observation could be made about" the Democrats and generalisations about how there is no "difference in the inherent potential of the Republican and Democrat parties to spin off third party groups," as if their inherent or historical potentials had been what was mentioned.

Only to now acknowledge after all that sure, the Republicans are in a bit of a crisis right now, and that gives the strategical advantage to the Democrats this election cycle.

Like pulling teeth, I swear.. ;-)

0 Replies

Why should I exert extra effort to make it easier for you & bernie? :wink:

Besides, had either of you altered the proposition to suggest the odds favor a Democrat win in 2008, I would have readily agreed. However, with respect to internal party divisions degrading the election strategy, the situation is precisely the opposite of what Bernie suggested.

The prospect of defeat is making the Republican candidates assume more centrist positions and reducing the clout of the extreme elements in the party. The Evangelicals will huff and snort, but I am confident the prospect of either Hillary or Obama will sufficiently mobilize them.

For the Democrats the situation is necessarily the opposite. The prospect of victory will excite the appetites of their extreme elements, giving them a feeling of entitlement with respect to the party platform. This is already evident in the relatively wider spectrum of declared positions among the Democrat candidates, compared to the Republicans. The issue will become more divisive as the final nomination process completes.

I'm not suggesting that this will necessarily bring down the Democrats, only that it will be a problem for them. Even so I believe the odds right now are with them. (I'm getting my financial plans ready for the prospect of higher marginal tax rates and the end of special capital gains and dividend rates now. )

Things, of course could change. We are coming off an up cycle in the economy that has created new lows in unemployment and inflation and new highs in the stock market. Somehow I don't think that 2008 will present the kind of conditions that will make the expected Democrat rhetoric about higher taxes and new government programs very attractive.

0 Replies

george said

Quote:

Why should I exert extra effort to make it easier for you & bernie?

Challenging assumptions where they appear unwarranted is valuable. Wasting time through purposeful obscurantism is not. I think it isn't likely what we say here will change the flutter of a butterfly's wings so we might as well use each other to try to get things right.

I watched Hannity on Fox tonight. Dobson was a guest. There is now a serious degradation in the unanimity of viewpoint and the discipline of shared public talking points. Hannity was combative with Dobson and that is new. To paraphrase (and he kept hammering Dobson with this) "But don't you see that if you do not support one of these candidates or if you put forward a third party candidate that Hillary will certainly win and you'll lose all the things you've fought for?" Dobson's response was, "I understand but this is a matter of principle for which I have given my life for 30 years now and I cannot betray that."

0 Replies

That interview is not yet up on their site. So let me give you another Fox show from a day or two ago. You may or may not know these fellows, george, but they are deep in the movement and you'd be imprudent to simply pass off what they say here...

Quote:

BARNES: Tonight's top story rumble on the right.

The rumblers are social conservatives. At some point, they were always going to rumble because they are unhappy with the read leading Republican candidates. Many of the social conservatives many of whom are conservative Christians got together in Salt Lake City and we have been hearing the humbles ever since that meeting because they are unhappy with the prospect of some of these nominees winning the nomination.

Could Social Conservatives Really Bolt the GOP if Rudy Giuliani Is the Nominee? They have to be taken seriously. They represent a huge chunk of the Republican Party. They are an important block. Republicans can't live without them.

Here's what Jim Dobson of Focus on the Family one of the leading Christian conservatives said in the "New York Times," quote, "The secular news media has been reporting in recent months the conservative movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much great harmony that supposed. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008."

He may be right about that. A lot of them are unhappy. They are unhappy. I don't doubt they are unhappy in the order of the candidates they are unhappy with. Rudy Giuliani is the one they are most unhappy with pro- choice on abortion and pro gay rights. John McCain they have never liked. They are mad at him because they don't like campaign finances reform and he opposed the federal marriage which would ban gay marriage. And finally Mitt Romney who neither was there already but mainly switched a position that they like on the marriage of, abortion, stem-cell research. They are a little queasy about him because he's a Mormon and many are evangelical Christians.

KONDRACKE: What this Salt Lake City group said was if Rudy Giuliani gets to be the Republican nominee they well might defect to a third party candidate who is pro-life. 20 percent of Republicans might go for this third party candidate if t Rudy was the third party nominee. Talk to do a member of this group a respected serious evangelical of the southern Baptist convention he said that he agreed with that 27 percent estimate. It's really serious.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300133,00.html

0 Replies

I wasn't being obcure, purposefully or otherwise. I chose not to directly confront your proposition, but, instead (out of consideration and my high regard for you) to state an alternative one that I believe is better supported by the facts.

I'm not aware of any viable standard bearer for a splinter movement by right wing Evangelicals. (I don't know who "Dobson" is, but I assume from your quotes he is one.) They have nowhere else to go. Of course, they will snort and paw the dust now, but when the election comes they will vote for the lesser of two evils (as they may see things).

The Fox news theatre focuses on controversy, creating it when necessary, to maintain the illusion that competing superficial shouting matches somehow constitutes balanced analysis. (The other networks don't even try to disguise their bias and superficiality.) I don't take any of that stuff as being in any way meaningful.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

That interview is not yet up on their site. So let me give you another Fox show from a day or two ago. You may or may not know these fellows, george, but they are deep in the movement and you'd be imprudent to simply pass off what they say here...

I did see this show the other night and I am quite familiar with Barnes and Kondracke. Barnes of course is the relatively more right wing part of the pair (a bit nuts, if you ask me) - Kondracke is increasingly positioning himself as an almost Democrat, a position that I think is natural fior him (at least is squares with my impressions of him gained about five years ago - when he was less well-known- during a five day sojurn together in the same camp, by the Russian River) .

Interesting discussion, but just who will be the candidate that Dobson will support? I can think of no one who could be taken seriously. At this stage, I believe these are just empty threats - pawing the dust for effect.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't know who "Dobson" is

But you know what he (and the others I've been speaking of like Vigurerie who you also don't know who they are) will or won't do?

I think we might as well drop this george. Things will turn out as they will.

0 Replies

The funny thing is, at their big conference, the Evangelical leaders were talking about how people like our pal George here didn't take them seriously.

Quote:

Which is absolutely and 100% true. And the majority of them probably will still vote Republican.

But, is there anyone who honestly believes that the Republicans can afford to lose even 1% of their potential voting base and still win in '08?

The Evangelicals may vote Republican b/c they have no other choice, but they won't do so with the passion that carried the last few elections for the Republicans.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
I don't know who "Dobson" is

But you know what he (and the others I've been speaking of like Vigurerie who you also don't know who they are) will or won't do?

I think we might as well drop this george. Things will turn out as they will.

Don't get sore Bernie !

It is true, I take the right wing Evangelicals far less seriously than do you. I am a bit put off and worried about their new-found Biblical fondness for radical Zionism, however, beyond that, I think they are just a noise. While it is true that they have been a (mostly bad) influence on the present Administration, I believe their moment in the political sun has come and gone. I believe that now and for the near future Republicans have as much to gain on the center margins as to lose on the extreme right.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is true, I take the right wing Evangelicals far less seriously than do you. I am a bit put off and worried about their new-found Biblical fondness for radical Zionism, however, beyond that, I think they are just a noise.

This year, a gallup/usa today poll found (as have numerous previous such polls) that more than half of Americans believe that god created humans within the last 10,000 years. That would probably put american intellectual vigor for the sciences and for reason about midway between Britain and Afghanistan. We have differing notions regarding 'noise', george.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

This year, a gallup/usa today poll found (as have numerous previous such polls) that more than half of Americans believe that god created humans within the last 10,000 years. That would probably put american intellectual vigor for the sciences and for reason about midway between Britain and Afghanistan. We have differing notions regarding 'noise', george.

On another thread here you criticized Spendius for his deficiencies as a "logician". How well do you believe the above statement - even if the anecdote about polls is supportable - with its conclusion that "American vigor for the sciences and for reason" is deficient, compared to other countries, would do if it was subject to careful logical analysis (not to mention a comparative historical analysis)?

A cute phrase, perhaps, but assessed as a logical analysis of the question, and argument in support of the offered conclusion, it is as stupid and backward as the misleading image you offer for Americans.

0 Replies

It's easy enough to verify the polling data, george. There's lots of it and it's consistent. As the belief is not the position of the Catholic church, attribution lies elsewhere and that elsewhere is clear. All of that is simple enough.

You may, if you wish, refuse to reflect on what the consequences are likely to be (how could they not be?) given the above. Obviously, your choice. But I'll assume you wouldn't wish that figure to increase and if you agreed with that assumption, you'd have to elucidate why you wouldn't wish it. And that will have you arguing my point.

Luckily for america (lucky in one sense, that is) the modern demands for and upon scientific and technical development will function to maintain a check on the anti-scientism of the evangelical community in its push towards degradation of the science ed curricula.

0 Replies

blatham, you can probably find a poll to show almost anything, such as the high number of people that believe martians landed at Roswell. And I think it would be fun to be a pollster so that the questions can be framed in such a way as to result in the answers desired. If you want the people to be logical, frame the right question, and if you want the people to be stupid, frame the right kind of question and you will probably get the numbers you want. I also would submit to you that logical thinking is lacking in mankind all around the world, otherwise how can you explain some of the things that have happened?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

blatham, you can probably find a poll to show almost anything

In the case of creationism, though, it's not just the one Gallup poll Blatham cited. It's poll after poll after poll, none of which finds the share of creationists to be substantially smaller than 45%. If you can show similar polling results about Rosewell, I'd like you to show them to me. And even if you had such results to show, you would only surprise me. You wouldn't surprise Blatham, because stuff like this fits right into his theory about America's "anti-scientism".

0 Replies

Well, I just looked at the poll you cited and if you look at the numbers, it is obviously a flawed poll. 53% definitely or probably believe man evolved over a long period of time from lower forms of life, but 66% definitely or probably believe man was created in the last 10,000 years. So almost 20% of the people directly contradict themselves with their answers, probably because of the questions not being answerable with exactly what they might believe. Plus there are other possibilities besides the two that are given in the questions, so the poll participants are already boxed in by the questions presented, kind of like do you believe Henry Ford built the Model T 200 years ago or did somebody else build it later? Add to this that nobody really knows the exact history of man do they, including scientists?

I do have to question the logical ability of the Gallup pollsters when they devised the poll.

And according to this:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.4/walker.html

"According to a CNN/Time magazine poll, 65 percent of those surveyed think a UFO crash-landed in Roswell in 1947."

I couldn't dig up the original poll, Thomas, but I remember reading about it in the past, so I think this report of the poll is probably accurate.

0 Replies

thomas wrote

Quote:

You wouldn't surprise Blatham, because stuff like this fits right into his theory about America's "anti-scientism".

No, actually that would surprise me greatly.

When I used the term "anti-scientism" earlier, I was referring to the rejection of empiricism or scientific methodologies for establishing facts about the world where these bump up against biblical literalism or religious ideas which are fixed absolutely. Anti-Darwinism is the paradigm example, but not the only manifestation of this. I'm not sure what percentage of the home-schooling movement's advocates are motivated primarily by a desire to insulate children from 'humanism' or 'secularism' (from non-biblical sources of knowledge) but I'll wager it is a very high percentage.

Another contemporary source pushing against good science is the public relations operations of the Bush administration and business interests where validation of scientific findings are perceived to be contrary to their interests. Good science is labelled 'junk science' on the basis of threat to profits or threats to maintenance of power.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Well, I just looked at the poll you cited and if you look at the numbers, it is obviously a flawed poll. 53% definitely or probably believe man evolved over a long period of time from lower forms of life, but 66% definitely or probably believe man was created in the last 10,000 years. So almost 20% of the people directly contradict themselves with their answers, probably because of the questions not being answerable with exactly what they might believe.

That doesn't mean the poll was flawed. It only means the pollsters interviewed flawed people.

0 Replies

Re the earlier discussion (sexism), I'll just quickly point out the use of a particular term in the on-going Hillary narrative... "cackle". Men don't 'cackle', witches make that sound.

Quote:

The Cackle joins The Haircut and The Sigh
The media's comical obsession earlier this month with the tone and frequency of Sen. Hillary Clinton's laugh didn't just represent another head-smacking moment in the annals of awful campaign journalism. It also served as a preview of what's likely to come in 2008.

Anybody who thinks that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination that the Cackle narrative won't be revived has not been paying attention in recent years. That's why it's so important to take a moment to understand the press dynamics that allow a story like The Cackle to flourish, and why pointless stories like that -- and John Edwards' Haircut or Al Gore's Sighs during a 2000 presidential debate -- only affect Democrats.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know