The Two Factors That Will Give Us a Republican President

But it's anti-terror fascism!

George Bush has so massively ruined this country that you’d think that a Democrat winning in November is guaranteed. That’s the logical assumption anyway, but never underestimate the right wing’s penchant for national self-destruction. Ironically (of course, since everything these people do is ironic), they will destroy this country in order to save it.

Today we have two articles from two very different places that prove this point.

First up is Wynton Hall’s article “Kamikaze Republicanism”, published at that bastion of right-wing intellectualism, Some Republicans are upset that a “moderate” Republican — such as McCain, Romney, or Giuliani — might get the nomination, so they’re threatening to not vote in November. Wynton Hall thinks that’s a terrible mistake. He writes:

Rants of frustration such as these, while understandable, are baseless. More than that, they belie and betray the Republican and conservative arguments regarding the existential battle of our time…

Now he has my attention! Apparently there is one issue so important that the future of the entire country rests on it. And apparently only the Republicans are capable of protecting us from it! Tell me, Wynton Hall, what is it?

…the long term threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism.

What?! Yes, this is a grave issue, but where is the evidence that the Republicans are the only ones qualified to protect us? In fact, there is ample evidence that they aren’t qualified at all. Here are just three:

(1) The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001 happened on George W. Bush’s “watch”. I put “watch” in quotation marks, because this dim bulb was doing anything but protecting us from terrorism at the time. Despite mountains of evidence — including the famous Presidential Daily Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack within the U.S.” — the Shrub chose to do nothing to protect us. This criminal negligence led to the largest terror attack upon us within our borders.

(2) Despite every single bit of evidence that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, Dim W. Bulb decided to pull most of our troops out of our successful routing of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and go off on an irrelevant adventure in Iraq. This not only put us into the Iraqi quagmire, which has virtually bankrupted our country, but it allowed bin Laden to escape, al Qaeda to regroup, and the Taliban to retake parts of Afghanistan.

(3) Our continued presence in Iraq just serves to radicalize Islam, thus creating more terrorists. Bush hasn’t protected us from terrorism. He has created more of it!

Hall’s article continues with:

Individual liberties and freedoms are only useful insofar as one is alive to exercise them. To put it as Ronald Reagan put it, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

That is one of the biggest ironies in Hall’s article. In the name of “protecting us from terror”, the current administration has trampled many of our civil liberties. This is the generation that is losing those liberties and freedoms that Ronald Reagan spoke of. Wynton Hall is leading the charge.

The Facts from Halifax

The second article I want to mention comes from Al Hollingsworth of Nova Scotia writes in “Will the Christian Right Return a Republican?”:

Speaking of Satan, those who fear him the most, born-again Christians, just might be holding the outcome in the palms of their prayer-folded hands.

And once again, they will probably ruin things for the rest of us.

George W. Bush, like his father before him, and Ronald Reagan before GHWB, all pointed to the solid support they received, not only from the Christian Right, but also from many Catholics. It all goes back to 1976 and Jimmy Carter. That’s right, it was the Democrats who awakened the followers of Jesus Christ.

Carter, a born-again Christian and a lay preacher, mobilized the Southern Baptists, who in turn reached out to other Protestant denominations. The ensuing result was a massive block of voters who believed that in Carter, they had the individual who would, using the Bible, lead them in a Godly way.

Ack! We gave the Nobel Peace Prize to the guy who activated the fundie voting block?

However, Carter, who had been backed by half of all evangelical voters, had a surprise for the religious zealots. He was a genuine Democrat, and was not about to govern with one hand on the Bible. The anti-abortionists, anti-gays, prayer in school groups, etc, were thunderstruck that Carter, a good and decent man, wasn’t the right-wing loony they coveted.

And that was the last time the loonies voted for a Democrat.

The question now is, do they have the numbers needed to stop the Democrats? Those who think our friends south of the 49th, are only anxious to rid themselves of Bush and the Republicans are not looking outside the so-called box. They may not like the war in Iraq, but when push comes to shove, I’m betting their right wing agenda will win the day.

As Hollingsworth points out, the fundies are a huge voting block. It doesn’t seem to matter what the Republicans do to them. In the end, they will look at their favorite issues (hating reproductive rights and hating gays) and vote Republican.

Add to that the very large group of people that Wynton Hall described above, who fear Islamic terrorism so much that they will tolerate any violence done to our own Constitution, and you have a majority.

The Republicans will probably win in November.

13 Responses to “The Two Factors That Will Give Us a Republican President”

  1. Daniel Says:

    So true and so sad.I think the power of the fundie voters was stated in Jesus Camp.

  2. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Great post, Ron. I fear your conclusion of a Repub president, but am hoping the massive turnouts we are seeing is showing that passion for returning this country to greatness may yet win out. Apathy is the Republicans’ best friend. The more people vote, the more likely they will lose. It’s just that simple.

    It is, indeed, scary that the fundies basically want to start a racial war (Christianity versus Islam) and are perfectly content at building a larger and larger enemy to get that end goal.

    Can’t we just like spend a trillion dollars on sending all the fundie Muslims and fundie Christians to Mars to battle it out instead of messing up this planet? I mean the Iraq war is going to cost a trillion. I’m sure a trillion could get them off this planet so the rest of us can live in PEACE.

  3. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Correction: I said “racial war” but it’s really a religious war. Fundies don’t necessarily hate brown people when they believe their own pile of lies. It’s only when they believe in Islam that it becomes a problem.

  4. Arkonbey Says:

    Just a quick comment about former President Carter. Baptist he may be, but he is one of those Christians who lives the values down to his boots; with compassion to all and malice towards none. He was and is a good man and if more Christians could be like him, you might not need to write articles like that.

  5. WCG Says:

    The Republicans can’t win this election, but the Democrats can easily lose it. Right now, Republicans are really discouraged. Most of them don’t like any of their candidates much, and they’ve even lost their traditional fund-raising advantage over the Democrats. Give them half a chance and a significant number of Republicans will just stay home on election day. And this will mean not just a Democratic president, but more Democratic officeholders across the country.

    So how can the Democrats lose? By giving Republicans a reason to vote AGAINST a candidate, even if they’re not crazy about whom they’re voting FOR. The fact is, nominating Hillary Clinton would rejuvenate the Republican Party. She is absolutely HATED by Republicans (and by a significant number of independents – and even some Democrats – too). I’m not saying it’s right, but it is definitely true. Nothing would save the Republican Party like a Clinton nomination. Instantly, their fund-raising would increase and their party loyalists would be committed to defeating Hillary Clinton, the she-devil herself. They might not like the Republican candidate, whoever it turns out to be, but they’ll definitely turn out to vote against someone they really, really hate.

    Barack Obama is a completely different story. He comes across as such a nice guy that no one (with the possible exception of Bill Clinton) actually hates him. And he has reached out to independents and Republicans, even in the primary. Republican Party loyalists might not vote for him, but they won’t be determined to see him beat, either. I don’t mean they won’t attack him, because they’ll attack any Democratic candidate. But most Republicans won’t be as determined to see that he’s not elected. His nomination won’t provide a shot in the arm to the Republican Party like ‘Billary’s’ would. With continued Republican apathy and discouragement, Obama would not only sweep the election, but drag along other Democratic politicians on his coattails.

    After seven years of George W. Bush, even the Republicans have had enough. Give them a chance, and they’ll be apathetic, especially if their favorite Republican candidate doesn’t win the nomination. Keep them discouraged, keep them apathetic, keep them from turning out in droves in the general election. Nominate Barack Obama.

  6. ParrotLover77 Says:

    Arkonbey – I agree. His religious beliefs did not interfere with his political decisions. Like him or not, agree with his choices as president or not, he took his job seriously and was humble. He never thought that “God” destined him to be president (like Bush) and certainly did not kill people in the name of his god (like Bush). If all Christians were like him, the country would be better off and I certainly agree that blogs like “Bay of Fundie” wouldn’t be necessary. Whether “Carter-style” Christians believed in, say, evolution, would be a moot point because they wouldn’t be trying to change the public school system to misinform and indoctrinate a generation into lies.

    Carter “witnesses” by doing good deeds. Not by forcing anything down anybody’s throats.

    Well said.

  7. ParrotLover77 Says:

    WCG – You have a point, and I fear a Clinton nomination for the same reason. But I’m not sure it’s a “sure-thing” loss if she wins the nomination. There’s a lot of time and all the Republican candidates carry massive amounts of baggage. Even the “moderate” McCain wants the endless Iraq occupation, a new war in Iran, and wars anywhere else his bloodthirsty followers decide. It won’t take but one, maybe two, debates and a few questions about war before he shoots himself in the foot. Again, that doesn’t make a sure thing for Democrats, but you have to remember that nobody on the Republican side is on the side of sanity when it comes to the war (except Ron Paul, but he won’t win the nom and he only cared about money, not human life). 70% of americans want OUT and only the Democratic candidates want that as well.

  8. Justin McKean Says:

    I’ve been telling my fellow Democrats this for a few months, now. We’ll have McCain in the White House next year. And it will be entirely the fault of the Democratic Party.

    There are maybe 100 million citizens who will not vote this November. There are roughly 35 million who will vote for the Republican. There are about the same number who will vote for the Democrat. Maybe 10 million or so independents will be the voters who actually think through the issues and make a choice. They tend to be savvy and smart, and their BS meter is really sensitive.

    Four years ago we ran a candidate who disagreed with the Bush administration only in a matter of scale, not policy. We’re on the way to doing it again. Why is it that Obama and Clinton are considered electable? Specifically because they are moderates. How do you tell a moderate Republican from a moderate Democrat? Yeah. I don’t know, either. Rather than having to hope a Democrat might be constructively different, the country went with the familiar, even though destructive, Dubya.

    Similarly today, we’ve chosen to narrow the field to only those candidates who sound very much like the status quo. We’ve chosen to repeat the past instead of learn from it. We deserve to lose.

    If only there had been a candidate who had consistently voted against the war and everything else on the right wing agenda. Oh, wait, there was. But he’s dropped now. So, here’s to President McCain!

  9. ParrotLover77 Says:

    I disagree.

    First of all, nobody on Fox News likes McCain. That has to say something. Second, even the male republican cartoon character known as “Ann Coulter” said he’s supporting Clinton over McCain. That’s probably not true as he just likes to push buttons, but still it’s a big statement. The “base” doesn’t like McCain. That’s going to drive down the number of Republican voters.

    Second, if you can’t tell the difference between McCain and either Clinton or Obama, you are just not paying any attention. Sure they converge on some issues (hooray for bi/non-partisanship BS), but McCain wants (still) endless war and many new wars. That just doesn’t sit well with people right now. In 2004, there were many, many Americans that STILL (thanks to Fox News and the rest of the conservative media) thought Iraq did 9/11/01. Those people still wanted revenge. People believe that far less now and have settled down from blood thirst. “I voted for it before I was against it” won’t work this time around. Because the alternate choice is “I voted for it before I voted for it.” I’ll take flip-flop over batshit crazy any day. Another thing, I can promise you if coffins and severed limbs were allowed to be shown on the nightly news, people would be far LESS for war than they are even now (70% against). Heck, Kerry might have won if that was done 4 years ago. (I still think he did but for voting fraud and other irregularities by the neocons, but that’s for a different conspiracy-laden thread).

    Third, just wait for a few debates when we start getting down to “troops home now” versus “troops forever in Iraq.” That’s going to hurt McCain. For the non-political junkies, they just don’t know this yet about McCain. They just see him as a moderate Republican. They may even be buying into the “straight talk” BS still. They don’t know how bloodthirsty he is. Remember the 2006 elections. War was a huge reason Dems got elected. Unfortunately, we’re saturated with Bush Dog dems which makes all dems look bad, but there’s still time for the average joe to see the difference.

    I just don’t lack the faith yet. I see too much self-destruction on the repub side, and too much inspiration on the dem side. As long as the so-called middle roaders (aka, dumbasses that think there actually is a real choice between big and small government) can see that repubs just want to spend money on their rich cronies and dems occasionally want to provide something useful for the people (like healthcare), dems still have a shot!

  10. Brian Says:

    I have to agree about Hillary Clinton motivating Republicans to turn out in large numbers. They hate her, and they hate her husband. Look, I thought Bill Clinton’s presidency was largely a success, and I’m glad he was in the White House. I also happen to think that Hillary Clinton is a decent, honorable and intelligent woman. She is certainly capable of being president. But the prospect of the two of them in the White House again is, in my opinion, not what the country needs right now. We all know what the Republicans are going to do for the next four or eight years if she’s elected. Things will not get any better for America.

    I would consider voting for McCain only if Clinton is nominated and Huckabee is not his running mate. While I disagree with him on some issues, especially Iraq, he also strikes me as an honorable person, for the most part. However, he does not embody what I think the country needs and seems to be ready for.

    Without trying to sound corny, I really am optimistic that Barack Obama can do things for America that no one else can. I want a president I can be proud of and look up to, not one I’d like to see in prison. This goes beyond policy technicalities or wonkishness. I want a president that gives me goose bumps when he (or she) speaks, and inspires me to shoulder more responsibility for the good of America. Most of all, I want a president I can trust make decisions based on sound judgement, not political convenience. Does he have shortcomings? Of course, but I think his potential is too great to ignore.

    If nothing else, at least none of the three are raving fundies determined to turn us into a theocracy. We must always be wary of the power of the far right electorate (never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups), but I’m beginning to sense, just a bit, that they may have run their course for now. Perhaps I’m merely being wishful, but that’s how I see it.

  11. ParrotLover77 Says:

    Brian – McCain is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s ready, willing, and able to appoint very conservative supreme court justices and (and other conservative judges / appointees) even without a Huckabee running mate. For that reason alone, he’s a danger to all freethinkers. Don’t fall for it. For policy decisions he may, indeed, be middle road. But the SCOTUS lasts longer than any one presidency…

  12. Bacopa Says:

    Parrotlover mentions a religious war between Christians and Muslims….Sounds like a good idea. We can hold back while our enemies exhaust each other. Only problem is that such a war wold drive my country further into debt, cost the lives of my fellow citizens, and further erode ou civil liberties.

  13. ParrotLover77 Says:

    Well, as much as I hate fundie-ism, I don’t wish harm on anybody, even my enemies. Wait… Didn’t Jesus say something like that? I wonder why fundies forget that…

    Oh, but back to my point. A religious war of that magnitude would utterly destroy the world in many ways. As if human influence wasn’t doing enough damage as it is. That is yet another reason why logic needs to regain control of government.