Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One must distinguish between the "conservative" movement and the Republican Party. The GOP is an organization that exists for the purpose of winning elections. There is only one other consistent (or nearly-consistent) purpose to it that can be seen from its beginnings in the 1850s until today, and that is representing the interests of the capitalist class. There are a few exceptions even to that. But it has always been an organization that seeks to win elections. If the "conservative" movement is seen as something that cannot win elections, then the Republican Party will divorce it.

So no, they're not going to die quietly; in fact, if they doubled-down forever on the "conservative" movement THAT would mean they were headed for death. I don't expect they will, and I don't expect the party to die.

What I was seeing from those comments was not the views of the Republican Party but the views of movement "conservatives" who are not politicians. If they can see the writing on the wall, so can Republican politicians and there's plenty of evidence that this is happening. It may take another presidential election walloping before they finally do accept it, but it will happen.

Thing is, in the short term you can still win local elections with the Reagan unraveling world view. As long as this stays true, it is going to be hard to change the basic platform.

I do agree there are or ought to be those high in the Republican party who can see the writing on the wall. Thing is, can they win primaries against Reagan unraveling candidates then elections against Democratic candidates? Whatever their new world view turns out to be, and they are still working on it, they have to first create a new world view which can compete against both existing world views.

I'm not necessarily saying the Republican party is doomed, but they might not be able to get a new message across until the First Turning, when the flaws in the transformed by crisis world view become apparent.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I sit in the same weathered pew. There is an assumption in Redland that the "conservative" way is the only viable way, and this will become obvious soon ... really.

I had lunch with a guy today who feels that way, and he lives very well in very blue Maryland. At that, he feels put-upon. There is some irony there. I think we blues in Redland feel it a lot more, but it exists in some form everywhere.

They have been brainwashed by years of Fox "News" and RW Hate Radio telling them that they are the majority, that their extremism is mainstream, and that everything that says otherwise is "Liberal Media Propaganda". They simply do not have the mental frames of reference to comprehend what happened on election night.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Thing is, in the short term you can still win local elections with the Reagan unraveling world view. As long as this stays true, it is going to be hard to change the basic platform.

I don't think so, and current statements from prominent GOP pols seem to be bearing me out on this. The Republican Party has been a party that wins national elections, including the White House, for more than 150 years. It isn't going to be content with the status of a local power only, and I see signs of this already.

I do agree there are or ought to be those high in the Republican party who can see the writing on the wall.

This is not theoretical. There ARE such Republicans. They are ALREADY speaking out. The process of shifting has begun already. I predict it will take at most two more presidential election cycles, probably only one, and perhaps the shift will be complete by 2016 although I think that unlikely.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't think so, and current statements from prominent GOP pols seem to be bearing me out on this. The Republican Party has been a party that wins national elections, including the White House, for more than 150 years. It isn't going to be content with the status of a local power only, and I see signs of this already.

This is not theoretical. There ARE such Republicans. They are ALREADY speaking out. The process of shifting has begun already. I predict it will take at most two more presidential election cycles, probably only one, and perhaps the shift will be complete by 2016 although I think that unlikely.

OK. I will acknowledge that there are people within the Republican party who are exactly as you say. They wish to create a new set of world views and values that will attract enough votes that the Republican Party will remain a major power on the national scale. They wish to do so urgently. They are willing to put much thought, effort and money to the effort.

Thing is, creating such a world view / value set is not an easy task. Converting large numbers of people from their current values to the new value set is also not easy.

There are also Republican politicians who have invested a lot of their image and political capitol on the Reagan unravelling world view. Some are sincere believers. Some can only maintain power if they pretend to be sincere believers. Some might see the handwriting on the wall, but see the best way to cling to power is to stay the course. It will buy them a few years, even if they acknowledge the Unravelling world view is doomed in the long run.

In a rational world, those seeking a reality based rational version of conservatism would succeed within a few election cycles of creating a new world view that can eclipse the traditional Red and vie with a Blue pattern that might be morphing itself with a 4T post regeneracy transformation.

I don't see this as a rational world. People will cling to values overly long and overly hard. Have you noted how far reason has gotten you in talking to Red folk?

In a rational world, there would be more socialists.

Anyway, I anticipate that the 4T regeneracy and transformation will pretty well run its course before a new set of conservative memes starts attacking the flaws. I don't see this happening until sometime in the 1T.

But I'm also suspecting a Green generation of prophets is apt to attack the Blue values apt to grow out of the crisis regeneracy and transformation. It is not clear to me that the Reds will be the ones with the most vibrant set of values in conflict with the 4T Blue. So far, what the Red world view is doing in minimizing the Blue transformation. If the Blue do not transform sufficiently, if they continue to accept big money from Wall Street and the energy companies, as global warming manifests more fully, the Blue will be much more vulnerable from the Green side than the Red.

It is entirely conceivable that the next major polarity as of the next awakening might be Blue on Green with the remnants of the Reds perhaps merging with the Blue while many Blues defect to the Greens. Maybe it would be best thought of as purple on green.

Anyway, again, sure, there are rational Republicans who would like to adapt. They are just no more likely to be able to shift the Republican base than the Democrats have been able to do.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You may have missed his suggestion of Obama's homosexual orientation.

About Blue world's delusion, I think its important to note that whatever nightmare envisioned by Blue world on 2000 election night (i.e. when the SCOTUS handed it over to him) became eventually dwarfed by the actuality that unfolded from the Bush Administration. I think one would be hard pressed to suggest that Obama's actuality could ever come close to what Red world currently envisions.

That is an enormously big difference if one gives it some thought.

Obviously, Obama doesn't have what it took to be Washington, Lincoln and FDR. The Jets wasted four years trying to convince and turn Sanchez into something that he wasn't able to be or become naturally.

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

I'd like to have faith in the Jeffersonian ideal of an educated, engaged citizenry. The problem I find is that a lot of people I've seen are frankly intellectually lazy. Even if they are given the opportunity to elevate themselves, I believe it is most human's nature to let someone else do all the thinking so that they can focus on their bread and circuses. It is a choice, and slovenliness is not a virtue.

Rather than coming to their own conclusions, they'd rather be told what to think (and act) so that they can focus solely on their base drives and pre-programmed ideological egos. However I see that the distinction between the directive and the directed isn't an attribute to any one economic class, ideology ethnicity, or even mental capacity. I've seen a brighter spark of life and curiosity in a person with severe mental disabilities than I've seen in some of my fellow locals with a more supposedly normal intelligence.

I would say the world is too complex for humans to perceive and manipulate it directly as it exists. They tend to develop a simplified set of world views and values, and interact with the real world through the filter of their world view and values. Once said world views and values are formed, it is very difficult to examine them objectively or change them in the interests of truth or accuracy.

To some extent we are saying the same thing using different words. I would say it is very difficult to reexamine and change values. You are saying people are generally too intellectually lazy to do so, but could perhaps if they wished to. I'd add that one's world view and values tend to justify continuing to indulge in one's favorite equivalent of bread and circuses.

Alas, the feeling I have is that many individuals perceive themselves as being educated engaged citizens as they regularly listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh or their Blue equivalents. It is all to easy these days to buy into some set of prepackaged ideas that justify continued enjoyment of one's bread and circuses.

Originally Posted by B Butler

OK. I will acknowledge that there are people within the Republican party who are exactly as you say. They wish to create a new set of world views and values that will attract enough votes that the Republican Party will remain a major power on the national scale. They wish to do so urgently. They are willing to put much thought, effort and money to the effort.

Thing is, creating such a world view / value set is not an easy task.

They don't have to create a new world view. The task is much easier than that. They could simply drop the social issues and move a bit to the left on economic ones, becoming in effect Eisenhower Republicans. Remember, they don't need to become the nation's progressive voice, only its rationally conservative voice. To do that, all they need to do is drop the loonies. It wouldn't be hard at all.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Thing is, in the short term you can still win local elections with the Reagan unraveling world view. As long as this stays true, it is going to be hard to change the basic platform.

I do agree there are or ought to be those high in the Republican party who can see the writing on the wall. Thing is, can they win primaries against Reagan unraveling candidates then elections against Democratic candidates? Whatever their new world view turns out to be, and they are still working on it, they have to first create a new world view which can compete against both existing world views.

I'm not necessarily saying the Republican party is doomed, but they might not be able to get a new message across until the First Turning, when the flaws in the transformed by crisis world view become apparent.

Yes. The GOP didn't go from the Goldwater landslide loss to the Reagan landslide win and then to today's demographically challenged party in just a short while, it's been 48 years since Goldwater lost.
And they are not likely to turn it around in one or two election cycles. The Republican party today faces a unique situation in that even though demographics are against them nationally they indeed do hold large majorities in many states and a smaller majority in the US house. There mostly Tea Party supported office holders are not going to call themselves anything but "consevative" for a long time. I mean can anyone really see the likes of Mitch McConnoll or Louie Gomert proudly declaring themselves " a proud Eisenhower Republican"? I can't.

And these office holder, these party leaders are not going to be beaten by moderates anytime soon. The gerrymandered districts in most states lock in a GOP advantage that defaults to the right wing position because of where the base electorate is. Yes some gerrymandered districts will flip on them as the decade goes by, but most of them will still be reelected as late as 2020 because of the nature of their districts. And unless 2008 is the beginning o the 4T, and I think that it is, any other plausible date such as 911 or Katrina could mean that we are getting close to the 1T by the time that we get to 2020.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They don't have to create a new world view. The task is much easier than that. They could simply drop the social issues and move a bit to the left on economic ones, becoming in effect Eisenhower Republicans. Remember, they don't need to become the nation's progressive voice, only its rationally conservative voice. To do that, all they need to do is drop the loonies. It wouldn't be hard at all.

I think your error is in assuming humans are rational. Simply put, in order to win a Republican primary, you need the loony vote. Dropping the loonies while there are candidates actively seeking the loony vote is a problematic strategy.

I acknowledge there are some inside the beltway who are groping for something in the vague direction of Eisenhower. Let me know if Fox News and Rush Limbaugh start pushing Eisenhower propaganda. As I see it, they are media, they are entertainers. Their ratings depend on telling people what they want to hear, on putting on the show that will make them happy. They are bread and circuses.

I suspect we are not going to agree on this. Your perspective on how humans behave doesn't mesh well with mine. We'll see how things shape up.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They don't have to create a new world view. The task is much easier than that. They could simply drop the social issues and move a bit to the left on economic ones, becoming in effect Eisenhower Republicans. Remember, they don't need to become the nation's progressive voice, only its rationally conservative voice. To do that, all they need to do is drop the loonies. It wouldn't be hard at all.

The Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans have largely become... Democrats. They despise the racists, the anti-feminists, and the superstition-pushers. The rationally conservative voice is now in the Democratic Party.

In 2012 President Obama won not a single state that Eisenhower did not win twice. Except for Obamacare President Obama isn't particularly liberal. In 1952 and 1956 Eisenhower did badly in the Mountain and Deep South... but won some states (Maryland ['72, '84, and '88], Massachusetts ['80 and '84], Minnesota ['72], Rhode Island ['72 and '84]) that have gone to Republicans only in blowouts since 1960. On the other side of the coin, Barack Obama won Indiana (a state that had not gone to a Democrat in anything near a close election) in 2008 and won Virginia (a State that had not gone Democratic after 1948 except in 1964) twice. To be sure, extreme blowouts look much alike (1972 or 1984 looks like an inverse of 1936 except for three states). But that may say that Barack Obama and Dwight Eisenhower may have some similarities of temperament despite very different backgrounds. At this point I would figure that they are about as good as each other as President.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans have largely become... Democrats.

Yeah, and that's another good reason for the GOP to return to reality. Those guys shouldn't be Democrats. They pull the Democrats to the right, and as a result we have no progressive party in this country. We have a conservative party and a wacko party. If the Republicans stopped being a wacko party and became a conservative party again, the Democrats would then be freed to become a progressive party. We'd all benefit.

It's cute watching the brainwashed Team Blue people rant about how wonderful things are. I guess the most effective brainwashing is when you do it to yourself.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

It's cute watching the brainwashed Team Blue people rant about how wonderful things are.

Are you actually reading these posts or are you responding to a talking-point newsfeed from somewhere?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yeah, and that's another good reason for the GOP to return to reality. Those guys shouldn't be Democrats. They pull the Democrats to the right, and as a result we have no progressive party in this country. We have a conservative party and a wacko party. If the Republicans stopped being a wacko party and became a conservative party again, the Democrats would then be freed to become a progressive party. We'd all benefit.

Considering my mother was one, they began to drift to the Democratic Party in the 1990s--especially after the 1992 GOP convention. George W. Bush was kind of a last chance for the Republican Party kind of deal...

And we're not "Conservative" we're "Moderate", thank you very much.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by B Butler

I think your error is in assuming humans are rational. Simply put, in order to win a Republican primary, you need the loony vote. Dropping the loonies while there are candidates actively seeking the loony vote is a problematic strategy.

I acknowledge there are some inside the beltway who are groping for something in the vague direction of Eisenhower. Let me know if Fox News and Rush Limbaugh start pushing Eisenhower propaganda. As I see it, they are media, they are entertainers. Their ratings depend on telling people what they want to hear, on putting on the show that will make them happy. They are bread and circuses.

I suspect we are not going to agree on this. Your perspective on how humans behave doesn't mesh well with mine. We'll see how things shape up.

I agree. The GOP party elites made a Faustian bargain when they courted the Religious Right, now the Devil wants what is due to him. IMO the Elites cannot purge the loonies without destroying the Republican Party.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Considering my mother was one, they began to drift to the Democratic Party in the 1990s--especially after the 1992 GOP convention. George W. Bush was kind of a last chance for the Republican Party kind of deal...

And we're not "Conservative" we're "Moderate", thank you very much.

~Chas'88

As you can see in the contrast between the 1976 and 1992 Presidential elections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El...ollege1976.svg

1976

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El...ollege1992.svg

1992

Carter won several states (Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina) that Democrats have never won in a Presidential election since 1976 but lost thirteen states that would never go to a Republican in a Presidential win by any Democrat (California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) since 1992. In some close losses Al Gore won all but two of those states and Kerry won all but three of those states. Those states (and New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania) used to have lots of moderate Republicans.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

It's cute watching the brainwashed Team Blue people rant about how wonderful things are. I guess the most effective brainwashing is when you do it to yourself.

I'm still in a tiff over the vile stereotype thing. Brian described a large faction of the Republicans as 'loonies.' You are returning with 'brainwashed.' If I respond to either of you it seems proper to use your own language, but this just degrades the conversation into mud throwing. The gap between the two major American world views is large enough that neither can comprehend or appreciate the other. Rather than expand one's own world view to include something outside, it seems easier to close one's mind and assume the other guys are stupid, crazy, insane, evil or otherwise totally dysfunctional.

I'm seeing two things at core. It is OK for one's own party to arrange tax structure and other economic benefits to the interests of those that are apt to vote for them, but when the other party does it somehow race is involved. I see both sides as equally tainted, if tainted is the right word. To some extent noting that one party wants to help those who need help while the other wants to help the wealthy is just an admission of the current reality. The question is whether people think there are those who need help and ought to be helped or not.

The other major conflict seems to be Keynes against Laffer. Demand side against supply side. The interests of the many against the interests of the investing class. To some degree, not to a large and dominant degree, this includes minorities against established wealth as mentioned above.

Just for laughs, anyone want to itemize other aspects of sanity dividing clash? Global warming as a hoax? The need to maintain a strong Cold War military capable of defeating enemies that don't exist any more? What else divides us to the point where the two groups of people are simply incapable of perceiving the same reality?

Anyway, have you anything to contribute to the conversation other than vile stereotypes?

Sometimes you have to call it like you see it, and that's different from stereotyping. The current Republican base does consist of loonies. That is, it consists of people with a complete disconnect from observable, provable fact. People who believe that Obama is a Muslim, that the earth is 6000 years old, that taxes have gone up over the past four years, that the government is being more lenient on enforcing immigration law under Obama's administration, that FEMA is a government plot to build concentration camps for dissidents, that the government under Obama will take their guns away, that people who vote Democratic are mostly non-taxpayers or "takers" (when actually most Republicans fall into that category -- including most of the people who believe this stuff) -- these are loonies.

Nor is there any equivalent to them of any significance on the other side of the aisle. That's just the way it is. Maybe it's not the way your sense of fairness or whatever is motivating you here thinks it SHOULD be, Bob. But it's the way it is.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Sometimes you have to call it like you see it, and that's different from stereotyping. The current Republican base does consist of loonies. That is, it consists of people with a complete disconnect from observable, provable fact. People who believe that Obama is a Muslim, that the earth is 6000 years old, that taxes have gone up over the past four years, that the government is being more lenient on enforcing immigration law under Obama's administration, that FEMA is a government plot to build concentration camps for dissidents, that the government under Obama will take their guns away, that people who vote Democratic are mostly non-taxpayers or "takers" (when actually most Republicans fall into that category -- including most of the people who believe this stuff) -- these are loonies.

Nor is there any equivalent to them of any significance on the other side of the aisle. That's just the way it is. Maybe it's not the way your sense of fairness or whatever is motivating you here thinks it SHOULD be, Bob. But it's the way it is.

I'm inclined to agree that the examples you give of Red detachment from reality are good illustrations. I'm not sure 'loony' is the most politically correct rational conversation inducing possible description of said detachment from reality.

Seattleblue? Would you care to respond with a list similar to Brian's with examples of how Blue folk are brainwashed? Any other Red posters care to step in? How many Red contributors to the forum actually believe the ideas Brian just gave as examples of Red thought?

Can we establish if the Blue rejection of the Red world view and values is different in kind than the Red rejection of the Blue?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Can we establish if the Blue rejection of the Red world view and values is different in kind than the Red rejection of the Blue?

We have to distinguish values from facts here in answering that question. As far as values are concerned, no, it's no different. For example, most Red voters believe in the traditional two-parent family as the base of society, along with the traditional sexual morality that was meant to enforce it. Most Blue voters, although they might SAY the "believe in the family," really don't in that sense, or certainly not to the same degree. Similarly, most Red voters value service in the military more highly than Blue voters do -- although this is a difference of degree, not absolute. And Red voters tend to be less skeptical about military engagement abroad. Rejection of Red values by Blues is no different, no more rational, than vice-versa.

But when it comes to FACTS, that's a different story. Reds tend to believe things that are simply, demonstrably NOT TRUE. When someone else believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya, and I believe that he is a Christian who was born in Hawaii, I am right and they are wrong, and this can be proven absolutely. On so many subjects from history to economics to physics and geology to current events, the Republican base believes things that simply are not true, and can be proven untrue, and HAVE been proven untrue in public -- without scratching their beliefs. And that's not something the Blue side does to nearly the same degree.

Will the Republican Party go the way of the Whigs and the Dodos?


The Botox Solution
Why the Formerly Grand Old Party Needs to Change and Won’t
By Jeremiah Goulka


Mitt Romney had hardly conceded before Republicans started fighting over where to head next. Some Republicans -- and many Democrats -- now claim that the writing is on the wall: demography is destiny, which means the GOP is going the way of the Whigs and the Dodo. Across the country, they see an aging white majority shrinking as the U.S. heads for the future as a majority-minority country and the Grand Old Party becomes the Gray Old Party. Others say: not so fast.


In the month since 51% of the electorate chose to keep Barack Obama in the White House, I’ve spent my time listening to GOP pundits, operators, and voters. While the Party busily analyzes the results, its leaders and factions are already out front, pushing their own long-held opinions and calling for calm in the face of onrushing problems.


Do any of their proposals exhibit a willingness to make the kind of changes the GOP will need to attract members of the growing groups that the GOP has spent years antagonizing like Hispanics, Asian Americans, unmarried women, secular whites, and others? In a word: no.


Click here to read more of this dispatch.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We have to distinguish values from facts here in answering that question. As far as values are concerned, no, it's no different. For example, most Red voters believe in the traditional two-parent family as the base of society, along with the traditional sexual morality that was meant to enforce it. Most Blue voters, although they might SAY the "believe in the family," really don't in that sense, or certainly not to the same degree. Similarly, most Red voters value service in the military more highly than Blue voters do -- although this is a difference of degree, not absolute. And Red voters tend to be less skeptical about military engagement abroad. Rejection of Red values by Blues is no different, no more rational, than vice-versa.

But when it comes to FACTS, that's a different story. Reds tend to believe things that are simply, demonstrably NOT TRUE. When someone else believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya, and I believe that he is a Christian who was born in Hawaii, I am right and they are wrong, and this can be proven absolutely. On so many subjects from history to economics to physics and geology to current events, the Republican base believes things that simply are not true, and can be proven untrue, and HAVE been proven untrue in public -- without scratching their beliefs. And that's not something the Blue side does to nearly the same degree.

I'm inclined to agree with most to all of the above. You have made a good distinction with appropriate examples of the difference between values and facts. I'll add you didn't use a insulting phrase like 'loony' or 'brainwashed' in the process.

I am wondering if any of the remaining Red leaning posters still active actually are willing to stand against your facts. I've been told countless times 'how all liberals think.' I'm wary of straw men. You at least seem to acknowledge that not all conservatives are anti-factual, just the... um... loonies. I know some red leaning are birthers, but have we any birthers posting here? We've discussed global warming of course to no end, but we don't have a Birther thread, praise Allah, nor an intelligent creation thread. Not all conservatives are as dissasociated with reality as to embrace every anti-fact.

But I'd still like to hear some examples from Seattleblue of 'brainwashing'. That seems a similar disparaging term to 'loony'. You have nicely drawn your line in the sand. I'd like to hear about comparable lines in the sand from Seatteblue or any others who enjoy throwing insults. Can they give examples of Blue anti-facts?

He is free with his insulting words, but poof vanishes if you call him out on it. I've found that to be another difference between blue and red leaning folk. At least on this forum, blue folk tend to respond rationally, as in your example in the last few messages, while the red leaning folk often continue to be abusive but fail to respond when one attempts to engage them.

(Insert sound of a garbage can lid being struck by a stick.) Seattleblue? Anybody? Lack of a response might imply that Brian is absolutely right.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We have to distinguish values from facts here in answering that question. As far as values are concerned, no, it's no different. For example, most Red voters believe in the traditional two-parent family as the base of society, along with the traditional sexual morality that was meant to enforce it. Most Blue voters, although they might SAY the "believe in the family," really don't in that sense, or certainly not to the same degree. Similarly, most Red voters value service in the military more highly than Blue voters do -- although this is a difference of degree, not absolute. And Red voters tend to be less skeptical about military engagement abroad. Rejection of Red values by Blues is no different, no more rational, than vice-versa.

But when it comes to FACTS, that's a different story. Reds tend to believe things that are simply, demonstrably NOT TRUE. When someone else believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya, and I believe that he is a Christian who was born in Hawaii, I am right and they are wrong, and this can be proven absolutely. On so many subjects from history to economics to physics and geology to current events, the Republican base believes things that simply are not true, and can be proven untrue, and HAVE been proven untrue in public -- without scratching their beliefs. And that's not something the Blue side does to nearly the same degree.

Fact: Barrack Obama is an American born Christian. Is there really a need to argue about it, bring it up, use it or stress that fact to the conservatives who post here? Fact: There aren't and haven't been any birthers posting around here.

I believe two parents are better than one. Facts show that one parent struggles more and one parent kids tend to struggle more than two parents and the two parents kids. You want to argue against common sense, go ahead and spend your time arguing against common sense. However, don't expect me to spend much time arguing because at that point I'm more interested in making a liberal look like a fool.

I believe in family, have faith in family because MY family and the families of MY friends, My Dads friends have always been there for me. My family believes in me, has faith in me because I've always been there for it. How many blue voters can say the same thing about their families and themselves? If you don't see it, don't experience it, it's pretty hard to believe in it.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Fact: Barrack Obama is an American born Christian. Is there really a need to argue about it, bring it up, use it or stress that fact to the conservatives who post here? Fact: There aren't and haven't been any birthers posting around here.

I believe two parents are better than one. Facts show that one parent struggles more and one parent kids tend to struggle more than two parents and the two parents kids. You want to argue against common sense, go ahead and spend your time arguing against common sense. However, don't expect me to spend much time arguing because at that point I'm more interested in making a liberal look like a fool.

I believe in family, have faith in family because MY family and the families of MY friends, My Dads friends have always been there for me. My family believes in me, has faith in me because I've always been there for it. How many blue voters can say the same thing about their families and themselves? If you don't see it, don't experience it, it's pretty hard to believe in it.

Well then let's look at some facts about that. I thought so: As usual, the red states come out behind the blue ones in just about anything and everything.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...title=Arkansas

A new report from the U.S. Census released Thursday suggests that divorce rates for men and women in the United States vary by region, and not necessarily in ways one might expect.

The findings, based on data collected by the American Community Survey in 2009 and published in a new report titled Marital Events of Americans: 2009, indicate that men and women in the southern United States have the highest divorce rates in the country, while those in the Northeast have the lowest (2009 is the most recent year for which Census data on this topic is available).

There are 10.2 divorces per 1000 men in the South (defined by the Census as Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) and 11.1 per 1000 women--above the national average of 9.2 for men and 9.7 for women in 2009. In the Northeast (defined as Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) the rate is 7.2 per 1000 for men and 7.5 per 1,000 for women in 2009. Two notable exceptions are Alaska and Maine--two states where divorce rates for men and women rank in the top 10.

"Divorce rates tend to be higher in the South because marriage rates are also higher in the South," Diana Elliott, a family demographer at the Census Bureau, said in a statement. "In contrast, in the Northeast, first marriages tend to be delayed and the marriage rates are lower, meaning there are also fewer divorces."


Here are some stats for out of wedlock births:

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data...ngs.aspx?ind=7

I notice the highest rates are in Mississippi and Louisiana.


Here's an interesting little side note I noticed:

Track Palin, Sarah Palin's 23-year-old son, has filed for divorce from his high school sweetheart, Britta Palin, TMZ reports.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2287099.html


Well these Republican ideologues can talk a good game, but when it comes to living it, not so much.

We're over 500 pages into this thread and there is stll fallout from the election to analyize.
And in the analysis we've been kicking around the idea of could the GOP survive as a regional party.
If we look at our own history the answer is a qualified yes. One way in which this 4T is like the civil war 4T is that the party supported by the traditionalists looks to be in danger of controlling only the two regions that are culturally the most unlike the rest of America, specificallythe deep soth and the great plains.
There's a base of about ten states iwith about 100 or so electorial votes (and members of Congress) in that base. That situation is not all htat different from what existed after the civil war where the Democrats won the White House only 4 times out of 18 tries from 1860 to 1928. Yes by picking off the disaffected outside of the traditionalist cultural zone the Republicans may be competitive when the Democrats have internal divisions--which may be quite often--but it still won't amout to control of the Federal government very often.

And from where we are now with a pack of extermely right wing plutocrats willing to fund Tea Partyish types in GOP primaries for the foreseeable future it will take a hard turn by the millies and later younger conservative voters away from anything that we would call culture war related before a more moderate GOP can compete. I'm not saying that it will take 18 election cycles to get terer but it may well take into the 1T, as happened in the mid 20th century, but considering how much propaganda billions can buy it cold be several election cycles before we see the Tea Party/culture war type move totally to the fringe.