According to conservatives, chances are...yes


sorabji.com: Are you stupid?: According to conservatives, chances are...yes
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By Antigone on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 02:49 pm:

    From Salon's War Room:

    Are people who live in cities real Americans? NRO says no!

    Of all the Republican arguments for maintaining the Electoral College, the one that Gary L. Gregg makes today in the National Review Online is both the most honest and the most appalling. Gregg's piece, titled a "Counting the Real People's Vote" argues that without the electoral advantage given to small, rural red states, American elections would be dominated by "a metropolitan elite who distain the cultures and values of middle America." In other words, the urban vote needs to be diluted because it's so Democratic.

    It's perfectly fair to argue that the Electoral College is needed to protect the interests of minority voters against the tyranny of the majority. But Gregg's argument is more sinister. By separating voters into "real people," whose votes should be given extra weight, and the "secular urban base" who don't quite count as fully legitimate citizens, he reveals one of the driving forces behind the modern Republican party -- a party which professes to embody Americanism while hating a great part of America. "Al Gore demonstrated in 2000 that the national popular vote can be won by appealing to a narrow band of the electorate heavily secular, single, and concentrated in cities," Gregg writes. This is an amazing statement -- if this band is so "narrow," how can it also be a major part of a popular majority? The answer, in the right-wing imagination, is that only a certain kind of citizens constitute real Americans, and thus are implicitly deserving of power despite the fact that they're a minority.

    "The electoral college is a democratic way of electing presidents that has produced good and moderate candidates in the past and gives some voice to the men and women who serve in the military, raise our families, and keep our communities of faith vibrant entities," he writes. Herein lies a central assumption that has infected America's political discourse -- that people in the so-called red states are somehow more virtuous, more hard-working and more patriotic than the decadent coastal elites. This assumption is why George Bush can so cavalierly insult Massachusetts -- a state that, as president, he ostensibly represents as much he does Alabama -- while John Kerry must genuflect before heartland culture of guns, NASCAR and beer. It's why the patriotism of people on the coasts is considered suspect while the loyalty of the red states is regarded as unquestionable, despite the fact that so much of Southern culture is devoted to celebrating the region's Confederate treason.

    Although the self-loathing media perpetuates red-state chauvinism, there's no factual basis for it. As the Economist reported in 2002, despite the American heartland’s reputation for self-reliance and entrepreneurial zeal, "Sadly, its true characteristics are not vigour and independence but economic decline and government handouts. The small communities that are supposed to embody the American spirit are, in fact, haemorrhaging jobs, people and wealth." Meanwhile, the kind of poverty and moral decay that the original neoconservatives lamented in America’s inner cities are even more endemic in the middle of the country. "What about the heartland's much-vaunted moral qualities?” The Economist asked. "Here again the image of small-town piety bears little relation to reality in rural America. The states that Mr. Bush won in 2000 boast slightly higher rates for murder, illegitimacy and teenage childbirth than the supposedly degenerate states that voted for Mr. Gore."

    But the argument that red staters deserve more power because of their virtue would be pernicious even if they were, in fact, virtuous. As Richard Hofstadter tells us his "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," Hiram W. Evans, the Imperial Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, wrote in 1926 of the struggle between "the great mass of Americans of the old pioneer stock" and the "intellectually mongrelized 'Liberals.'" The language has changed, but the idea remains. Like other Republicans, Gregg seems to believe that some Americans, because of their racial or spiritual authenticity, have the right to rule others. There's a name for that, but it's not democracy.

    -- Michelle Goldberg


By Nate on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 04:40 pm:

    meh. i don't disagree with her argument against his terming the red-staters "real people", but fucking hell. the argument about real democracy is such a load of crap. this is NOT A DEMOCRACY. this is a republic of federated states.

    the problem is not in the electoral college, but in the left-wing giving the federal government more and more power, pushing us towards nationalism, facism, empire. bush and his ashcroftian facism included. it's a product of the move away from state's rights, the very thing that REAL conservatives have been fighting for two hundred years.

    disappointing, tiggy. you know better.


By Antigone on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 05:06 pm:

    Are you saying Bush is a liberal? Such large shifts in power can't be done by just one party, so you can't just blame the liberals. For christ sake, man, the republicans have controlled the house of representatives for ten years! And it's not the moderate republicans in control, either, it's the far righties, the "Contract with America" folks. They've controlled the purse strings, the appropriations process, for all of that time. And you know that those who control the money hold the most sway. And for most of the past four years the republicans have controlled EVERYTHING. So why haven't all of those beloved state's rights of yours been restored? It can't be all the liberal's fault, d00d.

    YOU know better.


By Antigone on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 05:11 pm:

    And another thing, sure the democrats controlled the house for 40 years, util 94. But for about 1/4th of that time, 54-64, the democratic party was mainly conservative. It wasn't until after the civil rights act that conservatives started defecting to the republican party, and even then the process took about 20 years. So for much of the time the democratic party had control of the house, and the majority of political power in general, they were CONSERVATIVE. Not exactly the liberal boogyman you make them out to be.


By Nate on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 05:43 pm:

    i'm not saying bush is a liberal. bush exhibits fascist, puppethead behavior that you would expect out of a left wing government. was hitler a liberal? no, he was a fearmonger and an empire builder taking advantage of power afforded him by the left wing.

    the "contract with america" years where the congress was republican controlled, the so-called 'purse strings', was a time of smaller government and economic propserity (credited to clinton, but whatever.)

    democrat/republican whatever. i'm talking about conservatives and liberals. conservatives do not grow the government, increase the power of the federal seat. republicans may, but conservatives do not. get it? one is a nomer given by yourself, one is a nomer earned by your actions.



By Nate on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 05:48 pm:

    and further, the dixiecrats were a subset of the democrats. seriously, if the democrats were in control of congress and they were all dixiecrats, who passed the civil rights act of 1957? fuck strom, you ever hear of paul douglas?


By Antigone on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 06:03 pm:

    What do you mean "years where the congress was republican controlled..." Was? Like it's not now? And it looks like conservatives DO grow the government when they don't have someone, like a centrist democratic president ala Clinton, shaming them into doing so. The past four years have shown that, without a doubt! I mean, you're tering to make this conservative (good) liberal (bad) split, but then what is Dennis Hastert? He's been speaker of the house, presiding over the balooning budget and deficit? Is he one of them liberal budget busters?

    Like I've said before, a republican congress and democratic executive is the best mix. Republicans, and yes conservatives, need someone to politically pressure them into doing the right thing. If they didn't need that, then we wouldn't have had the last four years. If conservatives are so responsible HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE LAST FOUR YEARS? Have all the "good" conservatives been asleep?


By Nate on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 06:11 pm:

    well, the "good" liberals certianly have been asleep. the USA PATRIOT act was passed 98-1 in the senate.

    hastert is a fucking wuss. he's mouth moves when delay's ass-embeded hand twitches.

    how do i explain the last four years? certianly not 'of the people, for the people.' the whole fucking this is bankrupt and not a conservative in sight.


By Antigone on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 07:50 pm:

    Are you saying there's not one conservative in the house or the senate?


By Nate on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 08:12 pm:

    i'm saying there is no one with large enough balls to fight for the ideals of our country as prescribed by those who first fought for its independence.


By Antigone on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 09:04 pm:

    To that I'll agree.

    And that includes you and me.


By Nate on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 11:06 pm:

    neither one of us is in the senate.

    but yeah, though i might not agree with that forever. depends on when and how i crack next.


By dave. on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 01:51 am:

    heard the latest apc?


By wisper on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 01:53 am:

    whatthe....

    Bush's Campaign Site Reported Blocking

    Wed Oct 27
    LONDON - U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s official campaign Web site has blocked access to foreign Web surfers since Monday, an Internet monitoring company said Wednesday.

    Netcraft, based in Bath in western England, said the site, www.georgewbush.com, "appears to be rejecting visitors from most points outside the United States, while allowing access from U.S. locations."

    Netcraft did not report any reason for the blockage. "We can't say precisely, except that it seems to be a decision by the maintainers of the Web site," Rich Miller, an analyst at Netcraft, said in a telephone interview.

    "Last week's simultaneous outages for GeorgeWBush.com and RNC.org prompted speculation that an electronic attack may have occurred, as the two sites are hosted on separate web servers," Miller said in a statement posted on Netcraft's Web site. "The Bush campaign told media the outage was "no big deal" and offered no specific explanation for the outage."

    "Since Monday morning, requests to GeorgeWBush.com from stations in London, Amsterdam and Sydney, Australia have failed, while the four U.S. monitoring stations show no performance problems. Web users in Canada report they are able to visit the site," Netcraft said.


    -----------

    huh.


By Antigone on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 02:05 am:

    Yeah, you know the funny thing? They did the blocking in the simplest way possible. Sure, surfers outside the US can't get to www.georgewbush.com, but they can get to georgewbush.com just fine... And origin.georgewbush.com (the side needed for mirroring by the Akamai network) is also accessible outside the US.

    So, like most things, they did a half assed job of it. :P


By Antigone on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 02:06 am:


By dave. on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 02:14 am:

    why would anyone care what his stupid site says?


By wisper on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 02:29 am:

    because they hate your freedom?


By semillama on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 10:31 am:

    Nate-antigone: stop arguing as though the political spectrum was a straight line. Both of you know better than that. I know there was one of those political spectrum things posted here not too long ago, which showed where folks fell into quadrants. I saw one recently, and Kerry was in the same quadrant as Bush, although leaning more to the liberal/libertarian quad. I would posit that just about all our elected officials cluster around Kerry and Bush in that right upper quad of authoritarian conservative.


By Nate on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 11:06 am:

    well, sem, the problem i see with that is that we'd both then agree and thusly not get our RDA of thinly-veiled condescension.

    IMHO, and IANAL, puff


By dave. on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 11:59 am:


By Antigone on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 12:47 pm:

    sem, you bitch, I'm not "arguing as though the political spectrum was a straight line." It's nothing of the sort. It's a fractal like fucking everything else.


By patrick on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 01:10 pm:

    when and where is that Bush excerpt made. holycow, what afuckin hick.


By dave. on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 01:37 pm:

    no idea. probably back when he ran for governor. he sure looked proud of himself.


By Nate on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 01:46 pm:

    i think it is from 1990.


By Antigone on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 06:13 pm:

    OK, this is choice. Did you notice the picture of the military rally on georgewbush.com? (The "WHATEVER IT TAKES" TV ad.)

    CHeck it out: linky

    This is too fucking much...


By Antigone on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 06:18 pm:

    And, here's a REAL picture from Wisconsin today: linky


By wisper on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 01:28 am:

    Why do people settle for poorly done Photoshop?
    There's no excuse.


bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact