PDA

View Full Version : Ms. Parker on the money again.



Tyrone Bigguns
11-19-2008, 04:20 PM
WASHINGTON -- As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it. But they need those votes!

So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.

Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.

Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.

It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.

Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.

Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.

With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.

Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She's not entirely wrong, but she's also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:

"I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is. ... And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it's something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."

Let's do pray that God shows Alaska's governor the door.

Meanwhile, it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.

But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.

Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly.

The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter. And the nonreligious won't get religion through external conversion. It doesn't work that way.

Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party.

SkinBasket
11-19-2008, 04:25 PM
That was boring.

Tyrone Bigguns
11-19-2008, 04:28 PM
The truth often is.

sheepshead
11-19-2008, 04:36 PM
if that was supposed to be hard hitting and/or thought provoking, it fell a little short. Who is Ms. Parker anyway?

Tyrone Bigguns
11-19-2008, 04:48 PM
if that was supposed to be hard hitting and/or thought provoking, it fell a little short. Who is Ms. Parker anyway?

Amazing how republicans that criticize their own party are boring, aren't thought provoking, etc.

Ms. Parker is a syndicated columnist, repub/conserv...and was one of those who called for Palin to drop off the ticket.

sheepshead
11-19-2008, 05:15 PM
That's nice Ty. Thank You.

sheepshead
11-19-2008, 05:21 PM
Oh Kathleen Parker. Her smug cutzieness became old long ago. Anyone in the Washington Compost-please. Why are you so concerned with our party anyway. Is there another election coming up somewhere?

SkinBasket
11-19-2008, 05:32 PM
Amazing how republicans that criticize their own party are boring, aren't thought provoking, etc.

Some people see it for what it is, an opinion. A boring one. It's the dems who take this kind of stuff as fact or evidence of something other than one person's musings.

Zool
11-19-2008, 05:37 PM
Amazing how republicans that criticize their own party are boring, aren't thought provoking, etc.

Some people see it for what it is, an opinion. A boring one. It's the dems who take this kind of stuff as fact or evidence of something other than one person's musings.

Unless of course you agree with the article. Then it would be Gospel.

Kiwon
11-19-2008, 05:49 PM
Which is more annoying.....listening to fingernails on a chalkboard or listening to the emotionally-warped explaining why faith in GOD is a bad thing?

Zool
11-19-2008, 06:18 PM
3) Reading your skewed opinions on a messageboard

HowardRoark
11-19-2008, 06:37 PM
What a bunch of horseshit. A couple weeks after a victory the whole media is trying to write off the Conservatives; they come up with any nonsense they can to try to do it.

It’s actually pretty simple:

McCain was not a very good candidate.

Palin had a very bad interview with the affable Eva Braun.

McCain is not a Conservative.

The market imploded.

There is a whole lot a “white guilt” out there for some reason.

The pendulum always swings.

And since when are the ideas of Conservatives only for whites? I can’t even believe I read such nonsense. Can one of you out there PLEASE explain to me why Conservative ideas are not for people of color? And then try telling it to a guy a lot smarter than me: Thomas Sowell.

I can’t even believe the idiocy of people who actually get a pay check to write articles in this country.

SkinBasket
11-19-2008, 06:39 PM
Amazing how republicans that criticize their own party are boring, aren't thought provoking, etc.

Some people see it for what it is, an opinion. A boring one. It's the dems who take this kind of stuff as fact or evidence of something other than one person's musings.

Unless of course you agree with the article. Then it would be Gospel.

Yeah, I'm a real sucker for oped pieces. I don't read this kind of stuff from any publication, mainly because 98% are done by people with no more knowledge than you or me.

Kiwon
11-19-2008, 07:17 PM
3) Reading your skewed opinions on a messageboard

Window or aisle, Mr. Drool? No, sorry, the baggage compartment is off limits to passengers.

bobblehead
11-19-2008, 09:16 PM
if that was supposed to be hard hitting and/or thought provoking, it fell a little short. Who is Ms. Parker anyway?

Amazing how republicans that criticize their own party are boring, aren't thought provoking, etc.

Ms. Parker is a syndicated columnist, repub/conserv...and was one of those who called for Palin to drop off the ticket.

so she doesn't get it either, so what.

HowardRoark
11-19-2008, 09:34 PM
Jonah......


I don't know what's more grating, the quasi-bigotry that has you calling religious Christians low brows, gorillas and oogedy-boogedy types or the bravery-on-the-cheap as you salute — in that winsome way — your own courage for saying what (according to you) needs to be said. Please stop bragging about how courageous you are for weathering a storm of nasty email you invite on yourself by dancing to a liberal tune. You aren't special for getting nasty email, from the right or the left. You aren't a martyr smoking your last cigarette. You're just another columnist, talented and charming to be sure, but just another columnist. You are not Joan of the Op-Ed Page. Perhaps the typical Washington Post reader (or editor) doesn't understand that. But you should, and most conservatives familiar with these issues can see through what you're doing.

For the record, I have no problem with arguments about how the GOP has become too religious. I ended my book with pretty much that argument. I opposed Mike Huckabee vociferously because he seemed the quintessential rightwing progressive imbued with a rightwing social gospel. These are all good arguments to make and they have good responses to them. But please drop the nonsense about how the G-O-D people or the Palin people are low brows and beasts. There are low brows and beasts everywhere, on every side of the ideological spectrum. Maybe if you got more ecumenical hate email you'd realize that.

Zool
11-19-2008, 09:44 PM
3) Reading your skewed opinions on a messageboard

Window or aisle, Mr. Drool? No, sorry, the baggage compartment is off limits to passengers.

I thought Tex said you guys arent name callers?

texaspackerbacker
11-19-2008, 09:50 PM
I thought it was kinda interesting. Boring is what this forum has been the past few days.

It sounded like she was more trying to convince and give a pep talk to her own side than anything else. It's hard to argue with most of what she wrote. There was a lot left unsaid, though.

Kiwon's map says volumes of counterpoint to Parker's article. For now, I will leave it at that.

BTW, assuming that "gorilla in the pulpit" meant Obama, isn't that just a tad bit RACIST? I guess liberals feel like they can get away with that sort of thing.

Did I really say that, Zool? I don't remember.

Kiwon
11-20-2008, 01:13 AM
3) Reading your skewed opinions on a messageboard

Window or aisle, Mr. Drool? No, sorry, the baggage compartment is off limits to passengers.

I thought Tex said you guys arent name callers?

Sorry*

*read the message on your icon.

Harlan Huckleby
11-20-2008, 01:43 AM
I'm familar with that editorial becomes Alan Colmes read it excitedly on his radio show. It is a very shallow piece of thinking, really just name calling. Its a feel-good piece for people who dislike Republicans.

I don't have the stats in my head, but evangelical Christians voted in significant numbers for OBama. Like Bill Clinton in 92, Obama worked very hard to portray himself as a religous man, and it payed off in votes. The notion that the Republicans should become more secular like the Democrats is a joke.

This campaign did not turn on social issues. Perhaps Palin's view on abortion turned-off some voters, but they weren't going to vote for pro-Life McCain anyway. McCain hardly ran a campaign geared to bible thumpers.

The gay issue was decided largely by gay-hostile black and hispanic voters who also voted overwhelmingly Democratic.

I think politics is depressing. It just brings out peoples worst tribal instincts.

sheepshead
11-20-2008, 07:15 AM
Barry and Hillary dragged out religion when they thought they needed it.


http://bp0.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/R5TrN0RTKFI/AAAAAAAAAfE/OcHrLrst7z4/s1600-h/obama2.png

Or Hillary wearing a crucifix when it suited her.

sheepshead
11-20-2008, 07:21 AM
Posted: 4:17 am
November 20, 2008

Congratulations to Hillary (and Bill) Clinton - who seem to have won the presidential election, despite the official results on Nov. 4.

That's certainly a reasonable conclusion, anyway, based on the folks President-elect Obama is eyeing for his administration - folks such as former Clinton officials Eric Holder and Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton herself.

It's déjà vu all over again for Team Clinton - and America. And it's already prompting reminders of all the sordid affairs that attended that era.

On Tuesday, for instance, it was reported that Holder would be Obama's attorney general. As deputy AG under then-President Bill Clinton, Holder played a key role in a Clinton-era scandal: the pardoning of fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Meanwhile, talk swirls that Hillary herself might be secretary of state. Obama's folks are now sorting through Bill Clinton's complex financial arrangements to assess conflicts of interest, a process that in itself recalls the spaghetti-like ethical issues from his presidency.

Earlier, Obama named Emanuel, a hard-knuckled veteran of the Clinton White House, to be his chief of staff.

Who knew when Obama talked about the need for the nation to "turn a page," he meant turning it backward?

There's more: Tapped as White House counsel was Clinton's lead legal aide for his impeachment fight, Greg Craig.

And yesterday Obama also named ex-Sen. Tom Daschle to be secretary of Health and Human Services. Daschle wasn't part of Team Clinton, but the former Senate majority leader isn't exactly a fresh face, either.

True, a new administration needs solid veterans on board. And Obama's picks surely all have pluses as well as minuses.

But much of the president-elect's appeal was his promise to bring change - not to return to the hyper-partisan and ethically mired days of the Clinton era.

On the other hand, it's early yet. And there's certainly room for improvement.



The most powerful man in the free world on Jan 20th will be Bill Clinton-what is this guy thinking?

texaspackerbacker
11-20-2008, 12:32 PM
I'm familar with that editorial becomes Alan Colmes read it excitedly on his radio show. It is a very shallow piece of thinking, really just name calling. Its a feel-good piece for people who dislike Republicans.

I don't have the stats in my head, but evangelical Christians voted in significant numbers for OBama. Like Bill Clinton in 92, Obama worked very hard to portray himself as a religous man, and it payed off in votes. The notion that the Republicans should become more secular like the Democrats is a joke.

This campaign did not turn on social issues. Perhaps Palin's view on abortion turned-off some voters, but they weren't going to vote for pro-Life McCain anyway. McCain hardly ran a campaign geared to bible thumpers.

The gay issue was decided largely by gay-hostile black and hispanic voters who also voted overwhelmingly Democratic.

I think politics is depressing. It just brings out peoples worst tribal instincts.

ALL of which could be summed up by saying GULLIBLE PEOPLE GOT CONNED BY THE LEFT-SATURATED MAINSTREAM MEDIA--if your post is correct, Harlan, depressingly, even a lot of evangelical Christians.

If the good normal majority of Americans are going to re-assert political power, they/we are going to have to find a way to counter this rotten situation. Sadly, I don't see any solution coming up to that end.

The Great Communicator, Reagan managed to overcome the sinister leftist media; The Rush Limbaugh phenomenon did the same. Reagan, however, is long gone, and Rush has peaked and is mainly preaching to the choir these days, not convincing new people.

Maybe Palin or Jindal will step up; Maybe Obama will self-destruct; But none of that seems very likely, given the formidable enemy we have in the leftist mainstream media. We/America are in for a rough road until this problem can be solved.

Sheepshead, the huge majority of voters who are not true leftist believers, but were conned to vote for Obama anyway, are NOT going to be swayed by this stuff. They aren't even gonna know these names, and you can depend on the leftist medai to fluff up all of his appointees, just as they did their best to tear down Bush's appointees.