Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 25, 2005.
Pardon me for basking in a bit of schadenfreude.
Now, how many of these people actually voted in the 2004 election?
Time for another "Code Red"?
"Even at his current low point, Bush outscores every other recent president's low point since John Kennedy, who bottomed out with a 56 percent approval rating. Richard Nixon holds the modern record for the lowest approval rating 24 percent during the Watergate scandal."
Extraordinary. Still beats Clinton and Reagan at their lowest points...
What is even more staggering is that Tricky Dicky (no whitewash) still got almost 1/4 of the public approving of him even during Watergate...
I really wonder how this guy got re-elected. What did he do, import voters from other countries??
You still wonder how Bush got elected? Rove calculated (correctly) that more evangelical votes could be had than independant votes. While everyone was worried about 'capturing the middle' Bush Inc. went for the votes on the far social right. Now the American Taliban wants a favor in return. And when they say jump, people like Delay and Frist and Bush and Bush all jump and dance to the tune...
I know a bunch of folks are truly bent out of shape about the crapola concerning the southern border and Bush's kowtowing to Mexico. His labelling of the "Minutemen" as "vigilantes" doesn't show a bunch of smarts on the part of whoever's describing the situation to him.
I sometimes think that the degree of excitement over what I see as trivial issues stems from a feeling of helplessness about other, far more important events. The national brouhaha over the Schiavo thing strikes me as one of these instances. There's not a lot to be done about Iraq or budget deficits or the economy but wait and see what develops over time. So, since the media isn't prone to patience for waiting, here's the Schiavo deal to allow the creation of excitement. Politicos try to get in front of the parade and begin emoting at great length, one side or the other.
The Republicans in general seem to have gone against the national view, failing to understand that there just aren't as many snake-charmer religionists out there as some people think there are.
My take is that the Fundamentalists have stepped on their collective pork. There's a lot of embarrassment for the politicos who've jumped on their bandwagon, and politicos don't like public embarrassment. So, a whole bunch of political capital is down the tubes.
For the last 5 years an uneasy truce has been in place between the social conservatives and the economic conservatives in the GOP. This issue has shattered that truce and the GOP will struggle for a long time to repair the relationship that swept Bush Inc. into office.
Naw, I actually knew that. God knows we talked about it enough afterwards. I'm just expressing my frustration at the diabolically calculating nature of Rove's handiwork and at the inability of the Democrats to turn out the normal voters in this country nearly as well as the Republicans can command the evangelicals. It's that that truly boggles the mind. Someone tells me Bush's approval rating is low, I say, where were all these people on Nov. 2, 2004?
argh ... 43% approval ... even with all the BS the last time he gets so much support ? ... what else does he have to do ?
(and importing voters would have been a little difficult with him being the most unliked US-president since statistics are made ... )
I agree, GOP ran me off. A very good assesment about going after the far right and not the middle. Funny how Democrats dont seem to represent the Bible carring crowd. Thats a huge block of voters the democrats have alienated through various means. The Bible carriers dont want to hear about gay marriage, removing the Ten from govt buildings, or the never ending growth of govt . These are the things the republicans have successsfuly painted the democrats as representing.
If by "Bible carriers" is meant the fundamentalist, literalist-interpretation types, they're a minority. Some 81% of US citizens identify themselves as Christians. (NYT poll, not too long back.) Around half of these attend church services fairly regularly.
Just something to remember when making grand, sweeping generalities...
The Democrats have long put together a coalition of various minority groups. The Republicans have merely looked to some different minorities. Since the name of the game for both parties is political power, what's the problem? One's personal dislike for any given group does not obviate their right to vote.
No, but when said "minorities" make a mission of destroying the civil liberties of other "minorities" their right to vote for representation that will enact their hatred does not override the human rights of their targets.
40% isn't really a minority, isn't it ?
seriously does any other industrialized country has such a high number of people attending church regulary ? (i remember numbers like 3-10% for countries like UK,germany,austria)
i have been ... like twice the last year(i had too) and i don't recall seeing lots of people in the church
Dunno about you lot, but we're all godless communists over here.
If Congress had pulled this silly crap over the Schaivo case before November I'd bet we'd have a president Kerry right now. This issue is that bad for them.
I've been thinking the same thing. I'm sure you're right.
'...when said "minorities" make a mission of destroying the civil liberties of other "minorities"...'
To which civil liberties do you refer?
takao, the U.S. has historically been a church-going nation. There was a general downward trend in attendance until some fifteen or so years back, but it has been on an upswing since then.
Just 'cause folks go to church doesn't mean they don't "drink wet and vote dry", of course. (That refers to the fact that some parts of the "Bible Belt" states have "dry" areas where no booze is sold, or where no bars are allowed. So, folks will go out-of-county to buy their booze and drink at home or in "private clubs". These same folks will vote against allowing booze to be sold in their county. Alcohol-related traffic fatalities are higher in these counties.)
Baptists think dancing is a sin; Episcopalians don't. So, the Sunday night dance sessions at the Episcopal church (chaperoned, of course) were a good place for a high school or college guy to meet Sweet Young Things. Baptists don't approve of sex, generally; folks might find it as enjoyable as dancing.
Nobody ever claimed this country made sense. Fun, though.
I was thinking specifically of gay civil liberties, but the zealotry doesn't end at attacking minority groups. They (hate-wing fundies) seem equally satisfied attacking majority groups, too. It fills their need to cry persecution.
Hokay. I doubt you're view of the fundies is any harsher than mine, although it's good odds I've put in more time in trying to figure out the "why" of their doings.
To me, a characteristic of them is the desire for control over how others live their lives. It's only different in kind, not in style, from the same desire for control that I see in the ultra-left statists. It's just a different form of "We know what's best for you--and us--and you're By God gonna Do Right."
Modern American liberalism began its rise in influence and then power in the 1920s, peaking in the late 1980s/early 1990s. The national mood has begun the usual pendulum swing away from that, since Gingrich's "Contract...". As usual in this country, the pendulum swing is continuing. It seems to be away from the secular, right now. I've no idea how far it will go, but I've crossed fingers it doesn't go all Heinleinian...
Digressing a bit: Back when Garrison Keillor's "Lake Woebegon" radio show was televised on PBS, I was a regular viewer. I fondly recall Chet Atkins singing "Would Jesus Wear A Rolex" (on his television show). In those early days of satellite TV, PBS had four channels, showing at the same hour in each time zone. You could watch the same show four times if you desired, until you had the "good stuff" memorized. A high point was watching the Leadbelly biographical movie twice--great blues music.
I don't usually bring threads back from page 2, but this is probably worthwhile.
According to some of the most recent poll results:
Two other polls -- the WSJ/NBC and Ipsos/AP polls -- show similar results.
Nothing much to add to what we said before. Just wanted to note that the polls keep trending downward. Hope the Dems will make good use of that fact. The 2006 Congressional race is not that far off. If you want to neuter Bush, picking up a few Senate seats is the best way to start.
I'll be working for Bob Casey this year. Santorum simply must go, and a Casey in Pennsylvania has about as good a chance for winning as a Kennedy in Massachusetts.
You'd be VERY surprised. People are just NOW realizing that they were ... wrong.
Yeah. Um, I knew all along. But I'm too young to vote.