Not Your Father's GOP Anymore

[klubkleb]

It's surveys like this that make me thank god that I'm an atheist--and an independent. I don't know whether to laugh or to laugh really hard.

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
Yes 39
No 32
Not Sure 29

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
Yes 63
No 21
Not Sure 16

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
Yes 42
No 36
Not Sure 22

Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
Yes 24
No 43
Not Sure 33

Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?
Yes 21
No 24
Not Sure 55

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?
Yes 53
No 14
Not Sure 33

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?
Yes 31
No 36
Not Sure 33

Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?
Yes 23
No 58
Not Sure 19

Should sex education be taught in the public schools?
Yes 42
No 51
Not Sure 7

Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?
Yes 77
No 15
Not Sure 8

Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?
Christ 67
Other 15
Not Sure 18

[CRB]

Thank you Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity/Matt Drudge/Rush Limbaugh/Mark Levin/Fox News Channel.

[bazzer]

--and an independent.

lol!

[klubkleb]

Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity/Matt Drudge/Rush Limbaugh/Mark Levin/Fox News Channel

have replaced

Ronald Reagan/Jeane Kirkpatrick/William F Buckley/Barry Goldwater/Jack Kemp/Paul Nitze

[bazzer]

KK, why did you choose not to post a link to this poll? Is it because it would have pointed to the Daily Kos? And is there any word on whether Free Republic will commission a similar poll on the opinions of Democrats? Focusing on issues like "Did Bush allow 9/11 to happen on purpose?" And does anyone seriously believe that the results of such a poll would paint any more flattering a picture than this?

[klubkleb]

I had no intention to mislead....I just felt like puttng up the actualquestions and resposes vs. all the extraneous commentary material that was on the site where I saw the poll. Yes, DailyKos COMMISSIONED the poll, which was done by Research 2000, a reputable pollster from what I could tell. The respondents were not liberals pretending to answer as Republicans, but actual Republicans from across the U.S.

So if you want to see the full poll, go to dailykos.com and scroll way down, I suppose.

[Datalapper]

...And is there any word on whether Free Republic will commission a similar poll on the opinions of Democrats? Focusing on issues like "Did Bush allow 9/11 to happen on purpose?"'Will commission?" -Better get your hindsight checked. (isn't 20/20 supposedly the norm? ;)) as Rasmussan covered that ground almost 3 years ago (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance ) with the Democratic 'truthers' almost neck & neck with their Bush-had-no-idea bretheren. (35% to 39%)

In that poll, the Republicans rejected any conspiracy theory by a wide 7-1 margin, but 1 in 5 of those level-headed independents (18%) nonetheless believed President Bush DID know about the attacks in advance.

Before this poll I'd never even heard of 'Research 2000' so I question your rush to judgment and to your dismissing them and their results as the equivalent of the freepers.
'Cause from what little I've read so far about them, (Research2000, not FR) they are pretty highly rated for accuracy (unless you have some evidence to the contrary)

Does this now preclude you from ever using Rasmussan again in your future posts? (how will we ever get to 2012 without them!?;))

Personally, I think if anything should be questioned about the (startling, to say the least) results is not the motive of the pollster (http://www.research2000.us/?s=reid) or the people who commissioned them, but rather the sampling of the 'self-identified Republicans' used.

37 percent of the respondents were over 60, compared with just 9% who were under 30. I really don't think the younger Meghan McCain's of the party were proportionately represented, while the angry, white, get-off-my-lawn John McCains were OVER-represented.

And judging by John McCain going off on the Joint Chiefs' Mullen the other day about DADT, its not hard to see his fellow GOP seniors saying they don't want any gays in our military, and if they must serve then they don't want to know anything about it.

Molitsos responded to Politico today that it wasn't his poll's questions, but rather the Republicans' answers that were making the GOP look bad.
Even those littlegreenfootballers (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35698_Poll-_Bad_Craziness_in_the_GOP_Base_Part_2) conceded that "the questions were very straightforward"


Imagine my surprise that linking to a piece about a disturbing Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll of Republicans prompted several hyper-emotional meltdowns in our comments, and three hate mails so far today.

Apart from the insult-spewers, though, many readers wanted to know exactly which questions were asked, and where the samples came from. Today the full results from the poll are posted at Daily Kos, and the questions seem very straightforward.

And the results are disturbing indeed. If this poll is accurate (and Research 2000 has a good reputation for accuracy) the Republican base has an absurdly high percentage of wackos of all stripes, from religious fanatics to creationists to secessionists to conspiracy theorists. This is more evidence that the perception of a Republican base dominated by religious right extremists is grounded in solid reality.

[Philly]

After the digital signal switch the only TV station I can receive reliably is Trinity Broadcast Network.now!) (Yes, I know!)

Some of the televangelists are far worse than the commercial,gs are wrong with the country secular pundents. They back up their criticism with quotes from the infallible Bible, King James version, of course. Some of them are offering DVD's with "teachings that cannot be shown over the air. On the air, things are said in innuendo - Obama is issuing in the "new world order," Obama is risking USA fate by working with the enemies of Israel, Obama is anti-American because he says things are wrong with the USA, Obama is causing the USA economic crash.

I really think there is a connection between the states rate highest as "most religious" are the states that are at the bottom of the list for education level, income per capita, and mortality rates (especially children.)

[bazzer]

I really think there is a connection between the states rate highest as "most religious" are the states that are at the bottom of the list for education level, income per capita, and mortality rates (especially children.)

Well, religion is a convenient crutch for the ignorant (please not that I'm not saying that all religious people are ignorant.) I suspect it's more of a symptom of the education plight than a cause.

I've always admired the writings of H.L. Mencken, but I used to seethe at the way he slandered my native South in some of his works. Particularly grating was the fact that even back then I recognized that much of what he said about the South was true, if unnecessarily hostile.

I suppose one could trace the root causes as far back as the Civil War. But these things tend to be generational, and it can take a lot of generations to break the cycle.

[bazzer]

Here's another interesting poll. (http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/02/04/gallup-majority-of-dems-view-socialism-positively/)



Gallup: Majority of Dems View Socialism Positively

The Gallup Poll reports that a majority of Democrats, 53%, have a “positive” image of socialism, which includes independents who lean toward the blue party.


So I wonder why they consider being called socialists such a grievous insult? :confused:

[PeteE]

lol!

I actually don't think it's rediculous that someone could still consider themselves a Republican (or an independent) even if the kind of Republicans they support don't exist anymore.

Republicans often like to cite the kind of Democrats that once supported Scoop Jackson and who later supported Ronald Reagan. Some of these still identify themselves as Democrats even though they might be more likely to vote for Republicans these days.

[bazzer]

I actually don't think it's rediculous that someone could still consider themselves a Republican (or an independent) even if the kind of Republicans they support don't exist anymore.


I don't either. Indeed, I consider myself just such a person.

[CRB]

I actually don't think it's rediculous that someone could still consider themselves a Republican (or an independent) even if the kind of Republicans they support don't exist anymore.

Isn't that kind of like going to swim at the old WMCA after they've boarded up the windows and moved to a new building down the street?

[bazzer]

Isn't that kind of like going to swim at the old WMCA after they've boarded up the windows and moved to a new building down the street?

I guess I think that's a flawed analogy, at least in my case. I'd take the 1980 GOP over the 2010 GOP any day. But that's not my choice. My choice is the 2010 GOP vs. the 2010 Dems. Given that choice, I'll continue to identify with the former, and use my primary vote and campaign contributions to exert whatever meager influence I can to move the party back where I'd like it to be.

[klubkleb]

....My choice is the 2010 GOP ....

Led, inexplicably, by one Sarah Palin. A truly astounding state of affairs. A Dixiecrat party led by some half-wit in stilettos.

Still can't get a real answer on her appeal.

[CRB]

My choice is the 2010 GOP vs. the 2010 Dems.

I choose neither.

[CRB]

Given that choice, I'll continue to identify with the former, and use my primary vote and campaign contributions to exert whatever meager influence I can to move the party back where I'd like it to be.

When was the last time your primary vote made any difference at all?

[bazzer]

When was the last time your primary vote made any difference at all?

It was same as the last time my general election vote made a difference -- never. In fact my general election vote is even *more* diluted than my primary vote. By that logic should we stop voting altogether? (Serious question.)

[CRB]

It was same as the last time my general election vote made a difference -- never. In fact my general election vote is even *more* diluted than my primary vote. By that logic should we stop voting altogether? (Serious question.)

What is the point of belonging to a political party when they 1) no longer represent your views and 2) have already annointed their candidate before you get a chance to vote in the primary?

I'm not saying we should stop voting altogether.

[bazzer]

What is the point of belonging to a political party when they 1) no longer represent your views and 2) have already annointed their candidate before you get a chance to vote in the primary?


I'm saying that my primary vote counts at least as much as my vote in the general election. One could argue that the odds of either of them actually making a difference is on par with winning the lottery, but I continue to do both, because I still believe it's important the we vote collectively, even if an individual ballot is almost certainly unimportant.

Given that, I vote in the GOP primary simply because I register under whichever major party champions lower taxes and less government interference in the economy, period. Right now I still judge that to be the GOP. One day I'm sure that will change, and on that day I will become a registered Democrat.

And I think you know I have no love for the party system. I've railed against it on this board as much as anyone, and I vote for 3rd party candidates as least as often as major party ones. But I still see no reason to take what minuscule voice I do have an diminish it even further by not participating in primaries.

I did, however, like how it was done when I lived in South Carolina. There was no such thing as a registered Democrat or a registered Republican. Everyone was just registered, period. One could vote in the Democratic or Republican primary, just not both. I'd often vote in the Democratic primaries for off-year elections and the Republican one in presidential years.

[CRB]

Given that, I vote in the GOP primary simply because I register under whichever major party champions lower taxes and less government interference in the economy, period. Right now I still judge that to be the GOP.

It has been my experience that what the GOP says when they are out of power and what they do when they are in power are two entirely different things.

I need something more than meaningless words before I pledge my allegiance to an organization. Which is why I'm currently a "not-affiliated" voter.

[bazzer]

It has been my experience that what the GOP says when they are out of power and what they do when they are in power are two entirely different things.

Of course! That's why I prefer Republicans when they're in the minority. :)

I think it's true of both parties, though, and I don't "pledge my allegiance" to either. I voted a straight Democratic ticket (first time ever) in the 2006 mid-terms, because I was disgusted with the way one-party government was working in Washington. I expect to vote a straight Republican ticket in November for exactly the same reason.

I think I could be quite happy with Obama in the White House and Republicans in Congress -- their opposition role will allow them the freedom to at least act like they're fiscal conservatives. ;)

[CRB]

And I think you know I have no love for the party system. I've railed against it on this board as much as anyone, and I vote for 3rd party candidates as least as often as major party ones. But I still see no reason to take what minuscule voice I do have an diminish it even further by not participating in primaries.

Personally, I think it would send a much bigger message to the GOP leadership if dissatisfied members left the party rather than trying to send a message through the primary process.

In the end, they don't care what you think because they know that GOP party members are more likely to vote Republican than not. Otherwise, why would you still be a party member?

[bazzer]

I guess I just disagree. If people don't vote for Republican candidates, it sends the message "we don't like you" to the GOP. But if those same folks also voted for (say) Ron Paul in the primaries, it would give them some idea as to why.

[Bart Lidofsky]

Isn't that kind of like going to swim at the old WMCA after they've boarded up the windows and moved to a new building down the street?
I didn't know the Good Guys had a swimming pool.

[CRB]

I didn't know the Good Guys had a swimming pool.

Good catch. :)

[Datalapper]

And is there any word on whether Free Republic will commission a similar poll on the opinions of Democrats? Focusing on issues like "Did Bush allow 9/11 to happen on purpose?"Why just the opinions of Democrats? What about Republican gubernatorial candidates?

Texas gov. candidate questions any US role in 9/11

AUSTIN, Texas -- A Republican gubernatorial candidate said Thursday she has questions about whether the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks

...comments made by Debra Medina on the Glenn Beck Show that there were "some very good arguments" that the U.S. was involved in bringing down the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. "I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn," Medina said. "I think some very good questions have been raised. In that regard there's some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there." -WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021103713.html)Oh well. I think her 'trutherism' was pretty short-lived as she flip-flopped the very same day after being called out by 'Texas-First' Gov. Rick(let's secede)Perry.

[CRB]

On a related note...

Did I hear right that the John Birch Society was a co-sponsor of CPAC this year? Unbelievable.

[Datalapper]

On a related note...

Did I hear right that the John Birch Society was a co-sponsor of CPAC this year? Unbelievable.Yep. You heard right (http://wonkette.com/412781/freaking-john-birch-society-to-co-sponsor-cpac-2010). Also GlennBeck, the main speaker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz2u-xC1FMM) on the closing day, was claiming that "Progressivism is The Cancer on America, and it is eating our Constitution; and it was designed to eat the Constitution"
(I'm sure if CPAC would've met $arah's $100,000 minimum word-salad fee she would've happily bumped Beck as keynoter.)
Making a 'joke' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viPRnZzpOYc) about the Austin suicide pilot anti-IRS nutjob was also among the events' offerings..:(
IMO, If Dick Cheney got the largest applause among all the speakers, then I think CPAC is preaching to an increasingly marginalized and diminishing and 'out of touch with mainstream America' base.

To respond to all these CPAC-J.Birchers & racist-birthers (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002190041) I would use Tom Harkin's succinct politics/driving analogy to ask Americans where they want to go.
"Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D".

[bazzer]

On a related note...

Did I hear right that the John Birch Society was a co-sponsor of CPAC this year? Unbelievable.

Ha ha, I'd love to know what bonehead came up with that idea. :)

As far as Beck goes, I think he's pretty much a moron, but I have to confess I did enjoy these few GB snippets quoted (disapprovingly) by Bill Bennett. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzM5OTJkYWE1ZTA5OTI1NWJiMjYwNDI4ZDg0NmQ3MGQ=)



“Hello, my name is the Republican party, and I have a problem!” “I’m addicted to spending and big government.” ”It is still morning in America.” ”It just happens to be kind of a head-pounding, hung-over, vomiting-for-four-hours kind of morning in America. And it’s shaping up to be kind of a nasty day. But it is still morning in America.” And, again, “I believe in redemption, but the first step to getting redemption is you’ve got to admit that you’ve got a problem. I have not heard people in the Republican party yet admit that they have a problem.”

[johnr]

"Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D".

Very Good DL.:D

Now Bazz, is going to have to stay up all night to think of a comeback!!! :rolleyes:;)

[bazzer]

Then again, here's one cool thing about this year's CPAC. Mike Huckabee hated it. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33250_Page2.html)



Huckabee, a 2008 Republican presidential contender and potential 2012 candidate who had spoken at the conference for years, said the reason he blew it off this year was that the meeting has become dominated by libertarian activists.

“CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year."

[bazzer]

Well, maybe the Birchers helped fund it, and no doubt there were some loonies in attendance (or even speaking) I look at this and it makes me think I would have felt pretty much at home at CPAC.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201310f29d090970c-500wi

Maybe Huckabee's right. But it's funny abruptly the narrative has changed, from "OMG conservatism has been hijacked by Jesus freaks!!!!!" to "OMG conservatism has been hijacked by libertarians!!!!!" seemingly overnight.

[Bart Lidofsky]

Well, maybe the Birchers helped fund it, and no doubt there were some loonies in attendance (or even speaking) I look at this and it makes me think I would have felt pretty much at home at CPAC.
Hey, if people want to go there, it can still be pointed out that President Obama was sponsored by the leaders of a group of bomb-setting terrorist killers, who publicly declared that they regretted that they hadn't killed more people. But most of the press considered that to be of no significance in Mr. Obama's candidacy.

[CRB]

Well, maybe the Birchers helped fund it, and no doubt there were some loonies in attendance (or even speaking) I look at this and it makes me think I would have felt pretty much at home at CPAC.

That's all well and good, though what's the point when Republicans grow government and spending when they are in power in Washington?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Smerkonish gets it.

[bazzer]

That's all well and good, though what's the point when Republicans grow government and spending when they are in power in Washington?


I doubt they'll be as accommodating with Obama as they were with Bush. ;)

Since I can't really count on either of the parties (as I think you can appreciate) I have a strong preference for divided government, which is the reason I voted a straight Democratic ticket in 2006.

[klubkleb]

......President Obama was sponsored by the leaders of a group of bomb-setting terrorist killers.....

Sponsored him for what? Rotary Club membership?

[bazzer]

Here's a great speech (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4830692) at this year's CPAC that didn't get much publicity.

[Datalapper]

Originally Posted by bazzer http://www.richardbey.org/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.richardbey.org/forums/showthread.php?p=18090#post18090)
My choice is the 2010 GOP vs. the 2010 Dems.I choose neither.

Its enough to make you Whig-out...

http://despair.dgram.net/wailinglist/votewhigWL.jpg

[Bart Lidofsky]

Sponsored him for what? Rotary Club membership?
His initial foray in the the Illinois State Legislature, and every election he was in after that.

[Paul]

It's surveys like this that make me thank god that I'm an atheist--and an independent. I don't know whether to laugh or to laugh really hard.




I’m not quite sure what the source of your amusement is regarding this poll. Are you sure your views are so much more “enlightened” than anyone else’s?

Are you surprised some think Obama is a socialist? Everything he does could lead one to that conclusion.

What makes Obama is so much more qualified than Palin, or anyone else for that matter?

Do you find it odd that Christians would consider Christ the path to heaven? It’s pretty much the point of Christianity isn’t it? Maybe you are amused by the pure ignorance of those who have a religion?

Surprised that some want Obama impeached? Probably the same percentage of democrats that wanted Bush impeached.

Do you begrudge parents that don’t want their children taught about sex by the school?

Anyway, I appreciate your opinion on subjects but I’m just curious about what’s so funny about other American’s opinions.

[klubkleb]

These:
Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
Yes 42
No 36
Not Sure 22

Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
Yes 24
No 43
Not Sure 33

Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?
Yes 21
No 24
Not Sure 55


Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?
Yes 31
No 36
Not Sure 33

[Bart Lidofsky]

These:
Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
Yes 42
No 36
Not Sure 22
Yes, but I'm still wondering what it is about his long-form birth certificate that has caused so much taxpayer money to be spent in keeping it hidden. I HOPE he's not pulling a Newt Gingrich.


Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
Yes 24
No 43
Not Sure 33I am certain Obama's preferred term is "freedom fighters".


Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?
Yes 21
No 24
Not Sure 55
They tried, but John McCain beat them to it.


Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?
Yes 31
No 36
Not Sure 33No. I do, however, believe that he believes in taking advantage of racism, including hatred of white people, to manipulate people.