0
   

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

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 03:55 pm
I think the relatively extreme elements of both parties are more or less stuck with the best they can get from their candidates. Clearly Republicans who would (for example) wish to see abortion made illegal are not going to find a candidate anywhere who will mirror that view. Similarly the PETA crowd and those advocating major wealth transfers among Democrats are going to have to accept more moderate positions from their final choice of candidate. Both groups ultimately focus on what they have to lose from a too extreme position. The lessons of the Republican contest between Goldwater and Rockefeller prior to the 1964 election have not been entirely forgotten.

In some ways the problem of the Democrats with their loonies is more severe than that of the Republicans.

In short, I don't think the relatively minor differences between the positions of Guliani and McCain or Romney on the hot button issues of social/political morality are enough to trump the win/lose potential of the candidates overall in the minds of most Republicans. Moreover I believe that is a rational judgement on the part of Republican voters.

I have actually given some continuing thought to your arguments about the strain of fundamentalist Christian evangelism in the United States, and, as well, to the (somewhat overblown and self-serving) views of anti intellectualism that Richard Hofstadter saw as associated with it. There is indeed something to all of this, and its origins go back to the original settlement of North America by British Dissenters (as they were then known). However I believe that its traces can be found as much or more in the unique strengths of America and the unique achievements we have made, as among our prejudices and limitations. Hard to separate one from the other.

I am currently reading a history of American Evangelism in the Middle East by an author (Michael Oren) who traces contemporary American fundamentalist ideas about the restoration of Israel and its relation to the self-image of American evangelical Protestantism to ideas that were active in America in 1820, and which animated a series of American missionary activities there - all organized and funded by staunch New England Protestants - most from Yale, Amherst, Harvard and other leading schools of the day. This activity all began very soon after the conclusion of the war with the Barbary pirates, enjoyed the enthusiastic support of president John Adams, and later Polk. It ultimately created the American College in Beirut and several other prominent institutions there. This rather large activity is described as flowing directly from the early American concept of itself, which was to some degree a new world version of Israel and the chosen people.

It is an interesting interpretation of events, and the tale does indeed have roots in the original settlement of this country and is traceable throughout the major events in our history, including the Civil War, and the subsequent assimilation of waves of increasingly disparate immigrants from Europe and Asia.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 04:04 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I think the relatively extreme elements of both parties are more or less stuck with the best they can get from their candidates. Clearly Republicans who would (for example) wish to see abortion made illegal are not going to find a candidate anywhere who will mirror that view. Similarly the PETA crowd and those advocating major wealth transfers among Democrats are going to have to accept more moderate positions from their final choice of candidate. Both groups ultimately focus on what they have to lose from a too extreme position. The lessons of the Republican contest between Goldwater and Rockefeller prior to the 1964 election have not been entirely forgotten.
Looks reasonable to me.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 04:07 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I am currently reading a history of American Evangelism in the Middle East by an author (Michael Oren) who traces contemporary American fundamentalist ideas about the restoration of Israel and its relation to the self-image of American evangelical Protestantism to ideas that were active in America in 1820, and which animated a series of American missionary activities there - all organized and funded by staunch New England Protestants - most from Yale, Amherst, Harvard and other leading schools of the day. This activity all began very soon after the conclusion of the war with the Barbary pirates, enjoyed the enthusiastic support of president John Adams, and later Polk. It ultimately created the American College in Beirut and several other prominent institutions there. This rather large activity is described as flowing directly from the early American concept of itself, which was to some degree a new world version of Israel and the chosen people.

It is an interesting interpretation of events, and the tale does indeed have roots in the original settlement of this country and is traceable throughout the major events in our history, including the Civil War, and the subsequent assimilation of waves of increasingly disparate immigrants from Europe and Asia.


Apple pie and the Middle East - the LA Times bookreview of "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, from 1776 to the Present".


The American University of Beirut was originally named the "Syrian Protestant College" :wink:
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 04:17 pm
That's it Walter ! Have you read it? I'm only about 30% through it and waiting to see how the author weaves the historical thread into contemporary matters to form a final judgement on it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 04:21 pm
No. But when I'd read that review I just did a bit of research (on- and off-line).
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 04:23 pm
Of course none of that applies to a Jesuit educated Irish Catholic son of immigrants from the emerald island. He is happily free of the prejudices of both the Old World and the New.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 04:30 pm
Ha!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 07:47 pm
blatham wrote:
OK, george and finn... let's see either of you make some reasonable accounting for the considerable support from the RR for a Rudy candidacy. You can use whatever term you wish to encapsulate or refer to that rough set of folks who attend church regularly, are mainly protestant and evangelical, who send their dollars in to Pat Roberts and other such 'leaders', who vote Republican (particularly in the last two or three decades), who preponderantly believe that homosexuality is either sinful or immoral, and who believe that "liberalism" is risen from the scabrous scrotum of Beezlebub.

Oh, and please, if you fall to the use of "heroic", describe what that word means and how it might apply to Rudy.


This is a meaningless challenge because it is clear that it cannot be met.

Nothing either george or I answer has even a remote chance of altering your opinion of the "RR." The fact that you went to the trouble of identifying sinister reasons for their supporting a social liberal proves that.

Nevertheless, let me play Don Quixote

Guilianni made a lasting impression as a leader who was able to lead (and all that means) in the midst of an unthinkable catastrophe. One might think that the Katrina Is All set would appreciate this quality in the man.

Guilianni was able to reverse the decline of NY precipitated by Liberal mayors and reduce crime, clean up the city and put the shine back on the Big Apple.

Those two accomplishments alone are pretty good reasons to consider voting for the man. Throw in the fact that he was super-tough on NYC ferret owners and he almost gets my vote without a second thought.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 07:49 pm
blatham wrote:
OK, george and finn... let's see either of you make some reasonable accounting for the considerable support from the RR for a Rudy candidacy. You can use whatever term you wish to encapsulate or refer to that rough set of folks who attend church regularly, are mainly protestant and evangelical, who send their dollars in to Pat Roberts and other such 'leaders', who vote Republican (particularly in the last two or three decades), who preponderantly believe that homosexuality is either sinful or immoral, and who believe that "liberalism" is risen from the scabrous scrotum of Beezlebub.

Oh, and please, if you fall to the use of "heroic", describe what that word means and how it might apply to Rudy.


Correction: Liberalism didn't arise from the scabrous scrotum of Beezlebub, it flaked off.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 07:53 pm
nimh wrote:
I had still wanted to add as well, before I got stuck without internet connection, that:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Is your take on the "RR" at all akin to a belief that all blacks are shiftless, all jews are greedy, all irish are drunkards and all gays are pedophiles?


georgeob1 wrote:
Clearly you don't understand. Stereotypes are not really stereotypes when they are used by oh-so-thoughtful and self-righteous liberals focusing their intellectiual powers on an analysis of the likely behavior of the unter mensch.


Also, of course, Finn's comparison here is void. Black you are not by choice. Being cast as inferior for what you were born as has a specific connotation (implied by George's word choice with "untermensch"). A religious fundamentalist on the other hand, one is by choice.

There'd be a kind of equivalent if one were adressing a poster putting down all Christians (or Muslims, say) - your religion as such is somewhere between choice and what you were born as. But when the religious right (or, say, Muslim fundamentalists) are specified, the comparison is null. Ridiculing or belittling people for their political choice may be in bad taste, but it is not comparable to casting people's race or ethnicity as inferior.

The appropriate equivalent here, of course, would rather be between describing the religious right as ignorant, backward, intolerant and hateful, and describing the anti-war left as ignorant, stupid and hateful. Come to think of it, that makes Finn's indignation somewhat ironic..


Clever nimh.

Your posting advances the discussion immeasurably. (Ironic?)

OK

All liberals are cowards.

All moslems are terrorists.

All Dutch socialists are idiots.

Better?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 08:01 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OK

All liberals are cowards.

All moslems are terrorists.

All Dutch socialists are idiots.

Better?

Well it's certainly nice to see such a concise summary of your contributions here.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 08:03 pm
Meanwhile, if you go for quirky no-budget home-made humour, check out this for comic relief:

Fringe Candidate Showdown: Kucinich vs. Hunter

The guy is clearly both nuts and a geek. I like it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 08:16 pm
nimh wrote:
Meanwhile, if you go for quirky no-budget home-made humour, check out this for comic relief:

Fringe Candidate Showdown: Kucinich vs. Hunter

The guy is clearly both nuts and a geek. I like it.
Somebody make sure Dyslexia gets to see that.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 08:23 pm
nimh wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OK

All liberals are cowards.

All moslems are terrorists.

All Dutch socialists are idiots.

Better?


Well it's certainly nice to see such a concise summary of your contributions here.


You know I always aim to please you nimh.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:11 am
george said
Quote:
I have actually given some continuing thought to your arguments about the strain of fundamentalist Christian evangelism in the United States, and, as well, to the (somewhat overblown and self-serving) views of anti intellectualism that Richard Hofstadter saw as associated with it. There is indeed something to all of this, and its origins go back to the original settlement of North America by British Dissenters (as they were then known). However I believe that its traces can be found as much or more in the unique strengths of America and the unique achievements we have made, as among our prejudices and limitations. Hard to separate one from the other.


Probably the wisest thing I've seen you write, george. This does constitute a two-sided coin. If there is anything I've tried to send over to you through the ether it is that America has far far too much good in it to allow the bad in it to win the day. When you or other Americans become weirdly convinced that criticism of the real negatives about America poses an existential threat to America then you are going to lose that battle because you'll let the negatives slide through your purposeful or reactionary denial. It's bloody tragic. You MUST separate the one from the other.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:38 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
nimh wrote:
Meanwhile, if you go for quirky no-budget home-made humour, check out this for comic relief:

Fringe Candidate Showdown: Kucinich vs. Hunter

The guy is clearly both nuts and a geek. I like it.
Somebody make sure Dyslexia gets to see that.
vote early
vote often
vote Kucinich
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:45 am
blatham wrote:
If there is anything I've tried to send over to you through the ether it is that America has far far too much good in it to allow the bad in it to win the day.

I'm sure the message got across. After all -- I can't repeat this often enough -- you did vote with your feet against Canada, for the USA, for a Republican mayor, for a Republican governor, and for a Republican president. That's more than I can say of myself yet. I'm sure this hasn't escaped George's attention. Although you may eat the occasional rhetorical quiche for camouflage, George knows that you're a true Republican just like him, and that I'm the real leftie in this thread. (Okay, maybe me and nimh.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:54 am
finn wrote
Quote:
This is a meaningless challenge because it is clear that it cannot be met.

Nothing either george or I answer has even a remote chance of altering your opinion of the "RR." The fact that you went to the trouble of identifying sinister reasons for their supporting a social liberal proves that.

By "sinister reasons" I gather you mean my suggestion that this group (with the pretty fuzzy edges) has a particularly acute propensity (greater than the normal cross section) to fall under the sway or comfort of authoritarian social systems, there is rather a lot to support the contention as a reasonable one. You would, I expect, allow such variation in human populations and perhaps point to Muslim fundamentalists or the folks we allude to with the cliche "he drank the kool-aid" or, more likely having read your posts for a long time, re what you conceive of as "liberals". So perhaps the thing to do would be to turn to some serious academic research on authoritarianism and its identifiers. Let me know if you care in the least for orderly thought and I'll point you to it.

Quote:
Nevertheless, let me play Don Quixote

Guilianni made a lasting impression as a leader who was able to lead (and all that means) in the midst of an unthinkable catastrophe. One might think that the Katrina Is All set would appreciate this quality in the man.

I have no substantive disagreement with this big kudo in his cap. He was the right fellow in that situation.

However, the rhetoric (nearly universal) regarding this period and his role utilizes the concept of "heroic". For the reasons I explained earlier, that term is quite non-sensible in this context and it gets very interesting in trying to understand why Americans fall to this term in this situation so readily. In great part, it is the media creating a compelling narrative which they fall to as a knee-jerk matter of course. But folks bought it readily and it is the center-piece of his campaign. The thing is, it is an authoritarian formula...the big no-nonsense daddy, afraid of nothing, and will save the children then run down the dirty dogs responsible and rip their throats out and the people, the little people not nearly his match, will live in peace, protected. Not much different from the concept of a benevolent bearded god up there making the rules and protecting us.

Quote:
Guilianni was able to reverse the decline of NY precipitated by Liberal mayors and reduce crime, clean up the city and put the shine back on the Big Apple.

Partly true, partly bullshit. The history of new york city has seen periods of much worse civil strife and criminality and it will surely see more. Crime was rising in all North American cities through this period and the statistics began falling equally broadly at the time Giuliani held office. I'm certain that his policies were greatly helpful in reducing crime here, but that's not the full story (even if his PR department found it convenient to omit that full story). Your "liberal" causation thing is an ideological simplicity and it is silly for that.

Quote:
Those two accomplishments alone are pretty good reasons to consider voting for the man. Throw in the fact that he was super-tough on NYC ferret owners and he almost gets my vote without a second thought.

No, they aren't particularly good reasons for picking this fellow as a prospective President of the US in this period of time. You have just gone through 6 devastating years with one authoritarian bully (admittedly, without administrative skills) and it has not been good for your nation to have such a person in charge.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 05:04 am
Thomas wrote:
blatham wrote:
If there is anything I've tried to send over to you through the ether it is that America has far far too much good in it to allow the bad in it to win the day.

I'm sure the message got across. After all -- I can't repeat this often enough -- you did vote with your feet against Canada, for the USA, for a Republican mayor, for a Republican governor, and for a Republican president. That's more than I can say of myself yet. I'm sure this hasn't escaped George's attention. Although you may eat the occasional rhetorical quiche for camouflage, George knows that you're a true Republican just like him, and that I'm the real leftie in this thread. (Okay, maybe me and nimh.)


Outside of political machinations, Americans and Canadians are about 99% the same and 1% different. But I find that true with people in any western country and it doesn't change much more elsewhere. Everybody wants to cuddle their grandchildren regardless of the language or the religious figurines on the wall.

But you get up into the political machinations and we have America actually initiating war, and America actually condoning, planning and executing torture. That's ugly stuff and those are ugly people. But the folks on my street here are delightful. This is such an interesting and incredible city.

You forgot to include finn in with your group.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 07:44 am
More on the YouTube mystery ads.

Question: If this story is accurate, does this change anybody's opinion of Obama who has denied any knowledge of the origin of these ads? Or will it be accepted that his campaign in fact did not authorize or know the ads were being produced?

And......if the ad had been traced to somebody linked with Giuliani, Romney, or some Republican, would the Republican be treated differently?

Mystery Creator of Anti-Clinton Ad ID'd
Mar 22, 7:21 AM (ET)

By JIM KUHNHENN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Internet video sensation that targeted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton now has rival Sen. Barack Obama on the spot.

Heralded by many as the embodiment of Web-driven citizen activism, the mysterious YouTube ad now stands revealed as the work of a Democratic operative employed by a consulting firm with Obama links.

"It's true ... yeah, it's me," said Philip de Vellis, a 33-year-old strategist with Blue State Digital, a Washington company that advises Democratic candidates and liberal groups.

Blue State designed Obama's Web site, and one of the firm's founding members, Joe Rospars, took a leave from the company to work as Obama's director of new media.

Obama, Blue State and de Vellis all say de Vellis acted on his own. De Vellis left the company on Wednesday. He said he resigned; Thomas Gensemer, the firm's managing director, said he was fired.

The entire episode hangs a cloud over the Obama camp
MORE HERE
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 03:21:28