The new Michigan poll: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/santorum-moves-ahea... 

Santorum looks like he's going to have a big win in Michigan, and Romney is being forced to spout faith-based insanities in an effort to survive (as is Obama).  

If Santorum is finally the agreed upon representative of the lunatic right, the Republicans are going to find that they've got a clear and angry split in the Party, with only one damaged winner coming out of the convention, and it won't necessarily be Romney.

While I think the Republican Party will lose the election, I think the cultural divide in the US might equal the Vietnam era. Will this year be the high-water mark of the "social conservatives?" Predictions anyone? 

Views: 454

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think Santorum beats him with his reaction to JFK's speech in support of separtion of church and state - it made him "want to throw up."

These few days before Michigan primary are going to be a hoot. I think Santorum narrowly winning it will help us the most. Any other guesses?

 

"It was actually, pre-Reagan, post-Nixon, …mostly as a result of the Nixon administration being brought down...."

The history I read said that before Reagan an unnamed Repub noted the similarities of thought between conservatives and fundamentalists. At this time (1974) I was a moderate Repub seeking election to the Arizona legislature, and was paying attention.

Backtracking further...

The need to bring in more people arose after the party's Western conservatives nominated Goldwater and told Eastern moderates to leave. With the Dems enacting civil rights for blacks, and the Repubs needing to replace the moderates, southern Dems became Repubs and brought their racism into the party.

During Eisenhower's presidency the John Birch Society so disliked his moderation that they said he was a communist, which widened the split in the party.

One history says Dewey's defeat in 1948 discredited Eastern moderates and began the split.

"The history I read said that before Reagan an unnamed Repub noted the similarities of thought between conservatives and fundamentalists."

Right-wing authoritarianism, …yes this is well documented. 

The need to bring in more people arose after the party's Western conservatives nominated Goldwater and told Eastern moderates to leave. With the Dems enacting civil rights for blacks, and the Repubs needing to replace the moderates, southern Dems became Repubs and brought their racism into the party.

A lot of this is well documented in Bob Altemeyer's Right-Wing Authoritarianism(1981) and "The Authoritarians" (2007). Do check the linked page, the book is offered as a free download in pdf format. Also, John W. Dean's (The Watergate era John Dean) 2006 book, Conservatives Without Conscience. He recently gave a talk that was videotaped and presented on ForaTV: John Dean: Conservatives Without Conscience 

"...the John Birch Society…"

For more connect the dots, one of the John Birch Society's founders was Fred Koch, name ring a bell? Charles and David Koch are his sons. They were in the news recently with their latest democracy buying scheme

…follow the money.

 

Another small indication of polarization, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, of Maine, will not seek re-election. One of the last moderate Republicans has been effectively chased off by the new Republican (standards?). What's the word I'm looking for?

Just a few hours before the Michigan primary ends. That will be interesting.

"One of the last moderate Republicans has been effectively chased off by the new Republican (standards?). What's the word I'm looking for?"

Desperation?

The fundamentalists who are Republican activists have long been extremists; they have recently begun showing their desperation.

When will the Repub party split into far right and moderate right, and conservative Dems go with the moderate right? I say by 2016.

Rudy Giuliani seems to think so...

It's over and Romney won Michigan - barely. I think it might be a best case scenario for us.

If Santorum had won, it would've been a show of strength by the fruitcakes. The party leadership might have been motivated to find some fresh face, one that might actually have the mob appeal to win in November.

I like the present crop of losers. Let them battle it out with increasingly insane rhetoric, pandering to the real 'mericans in the South. The more desperate and hateful they get, the fewer Republicans will be elected in November.

It's a hope anyway.

Reason Being, Rudy's political instincts are better than mine. I'm happy to agree with his view.

I'm unwilling however to set aside his dislike for First Amendment rights. While he was NY's mayor, he set a national record for cases he lost.

The loss of the middle in Congress is a threat to all government functions. Polarization.

From The Christian Science Monitor (forgive the name, they're trustworthy) -

"By some measures, Snowe is the Senate's most liberal Republican and Ben Nelson of Nebraska is its most conservative Democrat. Both are retiring this year, raising serious possibilities they will be replaced by less moderate members of the opposite party, further widening the chamber's partisan divide."

For the rest of the story -

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0301/Senator-Ol...

It really is a shame about Snowe, I don't know much about Nelson.  We certainly need a middle to re-emerge though...and soon!

"The loss of the middle in Congress is a threat to all government functions." NOT!

With a middle in Congress, we the so-called sovereign people conclude that all is well and turn our attention away from the bribery/extortion racket that activists know as campaign finance.

Polarization demands the attention of those among us who want calm at any price. They (the innocent) seek explanation and maybe, just maybe, learn of the bipartisan corruption.

I'm not cynical. For almost forty years I've been an activist.

Polarization demands the attention of those among us who want calm at any price. They (the innocent) seek explanation and maybe, just maybe, learn of the bipartisan corruption. - Tom S.

 

The benefit of losing the middle is that it causes people to see the corruption they wouldn't see if we had some bipartisanship? Is this roughly what you're trying to say?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service