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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

OK

All liberals are cowards.

All moslems are terrorists.

All Dutch socialists are idiots.

Better?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)