So, where do the fundie nutters go from here?

[Bernie Gunther]

Well yes. I was recently re-reading the wonderful 'Psychology of Military Incompetence' and found myself drawing strong parallels with the people at the high end of the consulting/services industry.

My impression is that investment bankers would consider e.g. Price Waterhouse partners, who I'd judge to be a bunch of irredeemable sociopaths, as a collection of effeminate sissy boys, unable to reach the really tough and masculine decisions which wreck the lives of hundreds of millions of insignificant proles.

 

[turing test]

the next election is for Jeebus to return the economy to free market principles like it says in the Bible and kill all the faggots and lesbians.

Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

 

[laptop]

My impression is that investment bankers would consider e.g. Price Waterhouse partners, who I'd judge to be a bunch of irredeemable sociopaths, as a collection of effeminate sissy boys, unable to reach the really tough and masculine decisions which wreck the lives of hundreds of millions of insignificant proles.

Your clue is in the word "partners". They're clearly institutionalised. If they had proper go-getting greed-is-good solipsistic pizazz, they'd have incorporated their so-called "partners" into bridge abutments aeons ago.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What exactly is this thread: a communist circle jerk?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What exactly is this thread: a communist circle jerk?

I guess that depends on whether you think that having your life fucked up by some random rich guy who doesn't give a shit about you or your family or anyone you care about is morally uplifting or something ...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I guess that depends on whether you think that having your life fucked up by some random rich guy who doesn't give a shit about you or your family or anyone you care about is morally uplifting or something ...

Nobody wants that, but it's this ever increasing frenzy of describing all business people as being lower than a snake's belly, that seems a bit over the top.

 

[laptop]

'Course it's morally uplifting.

It's market discipline.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Nobody wants that, but it's this ever increasing frenzy of describing all business people as being lower than a snake's belly, that seems a bit over the top.

I don't think so. Someone who makes real stuff that's useful to real people is OK. That's not who we're talking about here though. We're talking about the people who made vast fortunes from an enormous ponzi scheme, facilitated by free market dogma, which as it turns out is going to make everybody's savings and pensions worthless and wreck the economic system which keeps most of us in reasonable comfort.

I think that it's quite justifiable to criticise the sociopathic bastards who brought this situation about in order to enrich themselves. If that makes me a 'communist' then I'll just have to live with that label.

 

[dilute micro]

In any case, looking at the various grassroots wingnut sites like Free Republic, it seems, at least for the moment as though the crazies are responding to electoral defeat with a demand for ideological purity. For the expulsion of such unbelieving wishy-washy leftists as John McCain.

Strange as it may seem even if the republicans do swing right from this they still may have a good chance in 2012. Obama & Co. can really screw things up for themselves but that's yet to be seen.

Republicans are only for small government on things that they don't care about. It's hard to find ideological purity when it's just a show. They've got some things to think about.

 

[Rentonite]

Boy you got that right. It is interesting to me that So many in Europe believe that somehow their future situation is controlled by American Politics.
Look Fellas, the Government of the United States of America is not a diety
Sorry, you will rise or fall on your own.

 

[mears]

Reading a few right-wing US sites over the last day or so, I've started wondering where they go from here. What's the point of having a massive cadre of gullible fanatics, from the point of view of the money guys, if they can't get your stooges into power? Since Reagan the Republicans have relied on these nutters to organise and show up at the polls and they probably can't win anything without them, but past a certain point they're toxic to normal voters.

In any case, looking at the various grassroots wingnut sites like Free Republic, it seems, at least for the moment as though the crazies are responding to electoral defeat with a demand for ideological purity. For the expulsion of such unbelieving wishy-washy leftists as John McCain. In effect, after years of being relatively malleable when fed appropriately stupid, violent and morally degrading propaganda, they're now showing signs of self-programming in an even more fanatical direction. On the one hand, this is a problem for the money guys because it's likely to make their usual party even less electable, but they can fix that by influencing the other team.

On the other hand though, there are a hell of a lot of these nutcases and they have guns.

Excuse me, are these your words or are you copying them from another website?

So what is "even more fanatical direction"? Tell us in your infinite wisdom where the Republican party is headed.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hehehe, you're so funny when you're angry mears

So anyway, it looks like battle lines are being drawn. On the one hand, the fiscal conservatives see e.g. AP: Tainted GOP lost to Obama's positive view and on the other hand the pro-Palin Jeebus-crazies, who are currently whipping up a campaign against anyone in the party suspected of briefing against Palin see e.g. Guardian: Republicans turn on each other it's also worth checking out redstate .com for 'Operation Leper', which appears to be a sort of witch-hunt against members of the Republican party who think Palin is nuts, involving torches and pitchforks etc.

 

[nino_savatte]

I just wish Jesse Helms could have lived a few more months to see a black man in the White House.

Yep and Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox, George Wallace and Orval Faubus to name a few.

 

[two sheds]

Hehehe, you're so funny when you're angry mears

So anyway,

*learns from the wise one*

 

[agricola]

Hehehe, you're so funny when you're angry mears

So anyway, it looks like battle lines are being drawn. On the one hand, the fiscal conservatives see e.g. AP: Tainted GOP lost to Obama's positive view and on the other hand the pro-Palin Jeebus-crazies, who are currently whipping up a campaign against anyone in the party suspected of briefing against Palin see e.g. Guardian: Republicans turn on each other it's also worth checking out redstate .com for 'Operation Leper', which appears to be a sort of witch-hunt against members of the Republican party who think Palin is nuts, involving torches and pitchforks etc.

Its not going after anti-Palin republicans, its going after the campaign staffers who have been anonymously briefing against her.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting article here from neo-con David Frum:

A generation ago, Republicans dominated among college graduates. In 1984 and 1988, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush won states like California, Pennsylvania and Connecticut – states that have been “blue” for a generation. (America’s least educated state, West Virginia, went for Michael Dukakis in 1988.)

Those days are long gone. Since 1988, Democrats have become more conservative on economics – and Republicans have become more conservative on social issues.

College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats – but that their values are under threat from Republicans. And there are more and more of these college-educated Americans all the time.

So the question for the GOP is: Will it pursue them? To do so will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will involve potentially even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues. That’s a future that leaves little room for Sarah Palin – but the only hope for a Republican recovery.

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Meanwhile, the religious frootloops think they lost by being too moderate:

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told CNN that conservatives need to take back control of the GOP if the party is to return to its winning ways.

"Moderates never beat conservatives. We've seen that in past elections," he said.

Rejecting suggestions that the conservative movement was viewed as being out of touch with the electorate, Perkins says the Republican Party needs to go back to basics.

"It's a return to fundamental conservative principles that Ronald Reagan showed work and that people can be attracted to," Perkins said.

Pointing to measures in California, Florida and Arizona barring same-sex marriage that passed Tuesday, Perkins said President-elect Barack Obama's election did not mean the country had embraced liberal social views.

"There was clearly no mandate to shift the country to the left on social issues," Perkins said. "What Tuesday was, was a fact that people wanted change, and it's a rejection of a moderate view."

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Slate are hosting an debate between various Republican brains-trust types on 'where do we go from here?'. I was particularly struck by this comment from Tucker Carlson:

The various Republican constituencies need some reason to hang together. It's not obvious what socially conservative, big-government types like Mike Huckabee have in common with economically conservative libertines like Rudy Giuliani. So why are they in the same party? It used to be because they both hated communism. Then it was Bill Clinton. Most recently, it was a shared fear of Islamic extremism. What now? Time to think of something—quick. There's no natural reason these two groups should be connected. In fact, they sort of despise each other, as you'll notice immediately if you ever eat with them.

source

 

[phildwyer]

On the other hand though, there are a hell of a lot of these nutcases and they have guns.

As I've often said on here before, these people are absolutely ripe for the picking by the revolutionary Left. As Gore Vidal said of Timothy McVeigh etc. Only trouble is there ain't no revolutionary Left.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

As I've often said on here before, these people are absolutely ripe for the picking by the revolutionary Left. As Gore Vidal said of Timothy McVeigh etc. Only trouble is there ain't no revolutionary Left.

It'd have to be an unpleasantly authoritarian sort of revolutionary left though, sort of Leninism with added prayer breakfasts and queer-bashing, if it were to get the nutters onside.

 

[phildwyer]

It'd have to be an unpleasantly authoritarian sort of revolutionary left though

True enough. But realistically, has there ever been any other kind? What sort of person do you think comprised the Bolshevik shock-troops in 1917-21?

 

[dilute micro]

As I've often said on here before, these people are absolutely ripe for the picking by the revolutionary Left. As Gore Vidal said of Timothy McVeigh etc. Only trouble is there ain't no revolutionary Left.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I note with sadness that Free Republic has been down for the last few hours, doubtless due to the many people like myself who are eager to share their pain.

 

[agricola]

Interesting article here from neo-con David Frum:

source

I think Frum is wrong there. For a start, he assumes that the loss of constituencies like college graduates and hispanic voters is a permanent (or semi-permanent) thing that will remain with the Dems unless the GOP changes its policies. That does tend to ignore the fact that those voters may well be less enamoured with Obama come 2012.

The problem that the GOP has is that this is simply not a matter of switching policy and everyone following meekly along - as that Carlson piece in Slate states, the GOP is a coalition - and they cannot simply piss any part of it off by totally dismissing their views and hope to win, or they really will get their arses kicked in 2010/2012. Carlson is correct that they need to redefine themselves, personally I think if they have any sense they should go back to small government / low taxes / fiscal responsibility, with social conservatism on the backburner but still present. The candidate also needs to be the right one as well, which is why it will be interesting to see what happens with Palin now. If she stays as Alaska governor, she will probably fade into the background and someone else will go in 2012 (Romney or Jindal). If Ted Stevens wins his election but still goes to prison and she replaces him after a special election, then IMHO she probably will be the 2012 frontrunner.

They also need to realise that the 2012 election (unless Obama does a blinding job in the meantime) will probably take place in a far more positive situation than occured this time around - there will be no Bush, no limitations on spending, and an Obama record with which to oppose and which has had four years to be tarnished by normality. Radical change that annoys a large part of the base but which doesnt attract more people in return would probably result in another landslide.

 

[dilute micro]

I note with sadness that Free Republic has been down for the last few hours, doubtless due to the many people like myself who are eager to share their pain.

You're all heart Bernie.

A quote from your link above...

The GOP also needs to recruit some new blood. Ron Paul was young at heart and amusingly nonconformist, and Sarah Palin was well-dressed, if somewhat goofy in demeanor. Mitt Romney looked, thought, and acted like a president, which is probably why a party that indulges far too much gratuitous intramural sniping over whether Hayek or von Mises is the better thinker eliminated him with embarrassing sniping about his faith.

Things in the US are coming to a head in the years to come. The republican party have lost their way. They've lost their identity and can't even run on that. Any infighting that goes on isn't just sour grapes it's for real and is going to get worse in coming years. I have no idea who will be on the next republican presidential ticket. It won't be Palin.

I really believe we will see a real third party coming up. It's easy for a politician to switch but it's not easy for the public. The public hasn't caught on that both parties are out of touch with what they believe or that both parties are part of the system trying to screw them over. But that's coming to a head, probably too late but still.

 

[turing test]

I. If she stays as Alaska governor, she will probably fade into the background and someone else will go in 2012 (Romney or Jindal). If Ted Stevens wins his election but still goes to prison and she replaces him after a special election, then IMHO she probably will be the 2012 frontrunner.

I think Palin, Romney or Jindal would be the best thing that could happen for the Dem's in 12. Palin and Jindal are bad for Rep’s because they will alienate people who aren’t evangelicals. While Romney, a Mormon will alienate evangelicals.

They need someone new.

 

[phildwyer]

I really believe we will see a real third party coming up.

Which will without any doubt be ruthlessly suppressed. The crushing of the American Left in the early C20th amounted to a civil war. People in Europe often forget that when they say there is no Left in Ameerica.

 

[dilute micro]

personally I think if they have any sense they should go back to small government / low taxes / fiscal responsibility, with social conservatism on the backburner but still present.

Small government means nothing anymore, low taxes either. I'd be happy with the fair tax. Let's see them adopt that.

 

[phildwyer]

The public hasn't caught on that both parties are out of touch with what they believe or that both parties are part of the system trying to screw them over.

Of course they fucking have. I don't know anyone who *doesn't* believe that. Do you think Americans are dumb?

 

[dilute micro]

Which will without any doubt be ruthlessly suppressed. The crushing of the American Left in the early C20th amounted to a civil war. People in Europe often forget that when they say there is no Left in Ameerica.

I think with popular support coming from dire times it can happen especially over something like taxes. I see the two parties messing things up so bad that it can happen.