20% of Republicans Favor Obama

20% of Republicans leaning to Obama

WASHINGTON – For critics of Barack Obama, 2012 has been portrayed as a do-or-die year for the country – an election that will determine whether America stays on the road to European-style socialism or veers right to reclaim its positions as the most vibrant economy in the world and the home of individual liberty.
Ads by Google

* Solar Panels (Pay No $)Go Solar for $0 Down + Save $1,000! Free No Obligation Quote, Call Now. VerengoSolar.com/Free_Quote
* Plans for Small BusinessFind out why so many small businesses choose UnitedHealthcare® UHC.com/SmallBusiness

But the 2012 election is looking more like a replay of 2008 than a do-over.

The latest WND/Wenzel Poll shows none of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates has solidified the base of the party, with one in five GOP voters leaning toward support of Obama in November.

The results are from the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. The poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 1-3, 2012, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.44 percentage points.

Here’s a plan for solving the problem of Washington: “A Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don’t!)”

“The improvement in Obama’s prospects compared to the four remaining Republican challengers stems largely from two factors,” suggests pollster Fritz Wenzel. “First, Obama has largely avoided the political limelight while the GOP candidates savage each other with increasing intensity. Second, a smattering of evidence indicates that the economy is getting a little better, which helps the White House in the eyes of the voters. Secondly, the bloody fight for the Republican presidential nomination – by most estimations the nastiest GOP fight in memory – has really hurt the images of the challengers in the eyes of both Republicans and, especially, independent voters. For Republicans, each candidate carries with them now some taint that cannot be ignored.”

In every case except the match-up against Ron Paul, more than 20 percent of Republican voters said they are more likely to support Obama than the Republican challenger. And Ron Paul is close, as 19 percent of Republicans said they are more likely to support Obama than Paul.

Making the situation more bleak for opponents of Obama, independent voters are apparently quite put off with the Republican nomination fight. While polls last fall showed them leaning Republican by roughly a two-to-one margin, they are now either split evenly or favoring Obama.

“What must be particularly alarming to every Republican campaign regarding this nasty fight is that, even among those who say they think the nation is heading in the wrong direction, Obama still wins at least 20 percent support in head-to-head match-ups against the four remaining Republicans, and among those who said they were unsure about the overall direction of the nation, Obama wins by overwhelming percentages,” observes Wenzel.

Obama also has made tremendous inroads on enemy territory against each of the four Republicans, winning roughly 20 percent support among conservatives and even those who consider themselves to be very conservative. And, even against Mitt Romney, considered by many to be the most moderate of the GOP bunch, Obama defeats him by a large margin among moderate voters.

“Obama has masterfully positioned himself to lower expectations among the electorate in terms of economic progress, and has sat idly by while Republicans – mostly Romney and Newt Gingrich – destroy each other’s reputations,” said Wenzel. “While the Obama-Clinton nomination battle lasted well into the spring four years ago, it never got as nasty as this year’s fight between Romney and Gingrich, which now appears to be very personal in nature. Obama was able to recover nicely by the time the general election campaign rolled around. If either Romney or Gingrich wins the nomination – and that is a long way from being determined – it is doubtful either will recover to full strength by the fall campaign. This poll indicates that it is more the negativity of the Republican nomination fight and less the small improvement in the economy that has changed the national political landscape.”

Barack Obama

It does help Obama that the recent upbeat economic news appears to have buoyed spirit nationwide. One third of respondents – 34 percent — said Obama has exceeded expectations during his first term in office, while another 20 percent said he has performed as expected. Less than half – 47 percent – said he has fallen short of their expectations for him as president.

Among independents, 60 percent said Obama has either met or exceeded expectations. Among political moderates, 52 percent said the same thing.

Obama would defeat all of the four Republicans if the election were held today, but Ron Paul fares the best against the incumbent. Obama leads Paul, 44 percent to 40 percent, with 16 percent undecided.

“This is likely a reflection of discontent over Obama’s handling of the economy and, in particular, his outsized appetite for deficit spending,” observed Wenzel. “Paul has far and away offered the clearest and most serious plan to cut federal spending, and it appears to be recognized by these survey respondents.”

Romney also is within single digits of Obama, currently trailing, 48 percent to 41 percent. Obama leads both Gingrich and Rick Santorum Santorum by double-digits. Obama leads Gingrich, 50 percent to 36 percent, and Santorum, 49 percent to 34 percent.

Nearly one-quarter of Republicans abandon both Gingrich and Santorum, and Obama leads both men by big margins among independent voters.

Bryant wrote:20% of Republicans leaning to Obama

WASHINGTON – For critics of Barack Obama, 2012 has been portrayed as a do-or-die year for the country – an election that will determine whether America stays on the road to European-style socialism or veers right to reclaim its positions as the most vibrant economy in the world and the home of individual liberty.

I got this far into the article and pretty much knew where we were going from here - is it even possible for right-wing commentators to use the word "europe" or "european" without adding some version of the word "socialist" or vice versa? And is that "individual liberty" where a corporation can be counted as an individual?

Secondly, the bloody fight for the Republican presidential nomination – by most estimations the nastiest GOP fight in memory – has really hurt the images of the challengers in the eyes of both Republicans and, especially, independent voters. For Republicans, each candidate carries with them now some taint that cannot be ignored.”

Well, what do you expect, you throw enough shit around and some of it is going to stick. Is really a case of "as ye sew, so shall ye reap" here though - the master and architect of the negative campaign was Karl Rove for the 2000 election, and republicans have learned so much from the master since that they can't turn off attack-and-smear mode even when they're going up against one of their own. And this isn't to say that the dems don't do it too, but the right are so much better at it - to their own detriment this time around.

Obama has masterfully positioned himself to lower expectations among the electorate in terms of economic progress

Well, he's had a lot of help there in lowering expectations from the blatant partisan bickering and obstructionism coming from both sides - what's the current approval rating for congress, has it broken back up into double figures recently?

Obama would defeat all of the four Republicans if the election were held today, but Ron Paul fares the best against the incumbent. Obama leads Paul, 44 percent to 40 percent, with 16 percent undecided.

“This is likely a reflection of discontent over Obama’s handling of the economy and, in particular, his outsized appetite for deficit spending,” observed Wenzel. “Paul has far and away offered the clearest and most serious plan to cut federal spending, and it appears to be recognized by these survey respondents.”

So, "serious" as in he's serious about it, but to anyone who has any experience in the reality of economics and government (or reality in general), his ideas are just whacko - nice in theory, but disastrous in implementation? Paul has no chance in hell of being nominated anyway, his core support is enthusiastic but his ideas are too far out there for independents/moderates to go near him - besides, there's too many establishment republicans who'd be in the shit if he actually did manage to get his hands on the reins, so they'll shoot him down no matter what else happens to save their little (or not-so-little) perks and empires.

I've heard this.... I don't remember a presidential campaign based on the person who thinks they can beat the incumbent. I mean, that's the plan, but they don't usually say, "I am the best one to beat the president in this election." I say, vote for the guy with the most experience! I do think Obama is getting better as time goes along.

Republicans are the party of old, white, rich men. Yeah, there's a few exceptions, but that's mostly it...

Plus, they seem to want to return us to the 50's. Birth control is bad. What rubbish!

Miles, Ron Paul has a reputation as a racist and homophobe. I like some of his ideas, but they are about 150 yrs too late.

Hmm...which republican has based a campaign on the idea that birth control is bad?

(BTW...you're right about Ron Paul).

Dennis324 wrote:Hmm...which republican has based a campaign on the idea that birth control is bad?

(BTW...you're right about Ron Paul).

This guy?

avlgal wrote:I've heard this.... I don't remember a presidential campaign based on the person who thinks they can beat the incumbent. I mean, that's the plan, but they don't usually say, "I am the best one to beat the president in this election." I say, vote for the guy with the most experience! I do think Obama is getting better as time goes along.

Republicans are the party of old, white, rich men. Yeah, there's a few exceptions, but that's mostly it...

Plus, they seem to want to return us to the 50's. Birth control is bad. What rubbish!

Miles, Ron Paul has a reputation as a racist and homophobe. I like some of his ideas, but they are about 150 yrs too late.

I guess some people just write and post things without ever really thinking.

So the GOP is the party of old rich white men eh? I guess that is why over half of those "rich" white men voted for the Dems last time. I guess old rich white men make up more than 1/3 of our population. If what you say is really true, you should have made sure your husband was a Republican. That way you would be rich yourself and be on easy street. Hell, Dennis would be rich and wouldn't have to worry about unemployment at the moment.

You wanna know who the republican party really is? I work with thousands of them. They are by-and-large high school educated, blue collar workers (you know, those non-union workers whose tax you wanna take so you can have more free stuff). Most make less than the average Democrat (Dems tend to be white collar, collage educated individuals). I mean what the hell is right? Is Mile's post right in that conservatives are less intelligent or are they rich? I have never met an unintelligent rich man so I'm confused.

Does it really make you feel better about your station in life to ridicule a block of individuals as often as you do?

I asked Bryant why he spends so much time specifically looking for things to ridicule conservatives with. I notice a pattern building much like what we saw on myspace and facebook. Tons of posts badmouthing conservatives and republicans with very few doing the same towards the Dems. Many, like this thread, claimed that conservatives/Republicans do nothing but blame/badmouth the Dems. Considering the relatively even split in both all examples of forums just given and the even split in the nation itslef......Hmmmm something doesn't fit that pattern. Actually in listening to you guys and our fearless national leader, I know who truly does all the shit talking and I know who is truly humble.

Marconius wrote:
I have never met an unintelligent rich man so I'm confused.

Oh, there are loads of them around - they tend to be the people you associate with the words "trust" and "fund". People who are rich through their own efforts are generaly smart, people who are rich because daddy (or grandaddy) was rich, not so smart.....

I asked Bryant why he spends so much time specifically looking for things to ridicule conservatives with. I notice a pattern building much like what we saw on myspace and facebook. Tons of posts badmouthing conservatives and republicans with very few doing the same towards the Dems.

Ah, that's cos we haven't seen Dod posting here yet :-P

Marconius wrote:
I asked Bryant why he spends so much time specifically looking for things to ridicule conservatives with.

This goes back to something I posted ages ago (maybe a year ago). The internet is like an echo chamber: people tend to only look at news outlets/sites that reinforce your own worldview and ignore anything that doesn't. So, left wing/democrats will look at the Huffington Post, the New York Times and MSNBC and ignore/make fun of FOX News, AM radio and the Washington times, and right wing/conservatives will do the opposite (for example). So, Bryant is spending his time on the former which is obviously going to come up with anti-conservative articles. I'll admit that I'd be guilty of that from time to time too, altho I try to mix it up a bit by reading Fox, the Daily Telegraph and other conservative sites every so often (have the fox news app on my iphone for example, the only news app i have there besides breakingnews.ie and thejournal.ie, and they all get used equally)

(And let's not bother bringing up the term "liberal media bias", that horse was flogged to death and beyond in the myspace days, never mind the facebook group.... How's about we split the difference and agree that there is one but it's not totally the vast lefty New World Order conspiracy that it's made out to be by the right?)

OK, here's a challenge for ppl so. For the next week or 2, try to spend at least half as much time as you do on your "favourite" news sites on the news sites of "the opposition", get a feel for the mindset so you know where everyone here is coming from. Sounds like an idea?

@ Miles and Marc:

While it is true that I do tend to post a lot of material criticizing Republicans, it really isn't motivated by some partisan desire to terrorize 'the other side' (heck, I'm a registered Republican!), but rather that FOX News and many currently popular Republicans have made a horrid habit of spouting things that are simply factually incorrect. It really bothers me to look to half the country and see the Conservapedia effect in action (Conservapedia's founder was offended by what he perceived as a systematic liberal bias in Wikipedia, so he elected to create his own site dedicated to conservative 'facts'). Some good examples of this are AGW, Evolution/Age of Earth, the Founder's views on the role of Christianity in government, and Obama's citizenship.

In regard to the former, there is a very strong scientific consensus behind warming, which in turn is based on thousands of different peer reviewed analysis that all come to more or less the same conclusion (before you go tin-foil hat on me and play the conspiracy card, keep in mind the way one gets ahead in science is by blowing gaping holes in the status quo, not by jumping on the band wagon). AGW is a FACT and in and of its self has nothing to do with politics. The science doesn't say that we should do this or that, but rather that it is happening. The reason that this has become politicized is because the policy (ie political side) that would be required doesn't fit with the GOP world view (the GOP small government response would likely simply be 'yes this is a problem, but no we aren't going to do anything,' which would sound bad), so they instead elected to try to politicize the scientists (scientists actually tend to try to avoid politics, because if one where caught mixing political ideology with their work they'd likely loose all credibility with their peers, this makes us easy targets because we usually are afraid to fight back). Because of this, you see all kinds of GOP fueled conspiracy theories and misinformation floating around trying to obscure the public's understanding of valid science.

Likewise, the age of the Earth and macro-evolution are also scientific FACTS. Evolution is probably the second most tested scientific principle (behind, of course, gravity), and yet it has held up to literally millions of scientific tests. Not only is it supported by studies of genetics and organisms with short life spans (evolution tends to be relatively slow, however when you pick a species who's life span is a matter of days, you can monitor changes relatively rapidly), but also by what paleontologists and archeologists have found in the fossil record. If one could scientifically disprove micro and macro evolution and propose a better model, then they'd become famous and probably land a job at a top university and be invited into the Academy. If any actual evidence where to turn up suggesting evolution was incorrect, there is all the incentive in the world to peruse it, however nothing of the type has emerged (instead what you get are religious fanatics who have no clue about evolution, yet like to ramble on about utter nonsense before scientifically illiterate audiences who are already predisposed to the speakers conclusion). The age of the Earth is likewise incredibly well established as being considerably older 6Ka (we've got it nailed as over 4Ga). These are scientific facts, yet I only know of one GOP affiliated politician who isn't afraid of admitting to accepting it (and look what that got him). Instead Republicans in several states are trying to marginalize the teaching of evolution in public schools (there where at least six such bills introduced by Republicans in January alone!).

If you turn on your TV or AM radio today you probably wouldn't have to look too long to find someone ranting about how this country was meant to be a Christian nation. We've had Rick Santorum go up on stage and argue that if you aren't Christian, you don't deserve civil rights. We've had Herman Cain say that he would treat members of a different religious group worse than Christians (not in those words, but that was the effect). We've had Huckabee (who really does seem like a nice guy, but he's still wrong) and the folks over at Wall Builders arguing that America was meant to be a theocracy. None of these are remotely true. The Treaty of Tripoli (drafted by a Washington appointee, unanimously ratified by the Senate made up by the framers of the Constitution, and signed by John Adams) contained a clause explicit saying that this wasn't the case. Likewise sentiment can be found in the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison (near bottom of page, speech for Bill of Rights).

Finally, we have the topic of Obama's citizenship and the Birther movement. While the origins of the Birther conspiracy go back to one of Hillary Clinton's supporters during the Democratic primary, it failed to gain steam with Democrats. It did, however ignite in 08 with certain GOP voters, especially after the conspiracy began being discussed on Fox News (despite having already been repeatedly debunked). The conspiracy was again later revived by GOP hopeful Donald Trump. I anticipate we will see it again this fall. The conspiracy has been repeatedly debunked and shown as without merit, yet it clings on because it fits part of the GOP narrative (as do the Muslim and anti-Christian components).

So long as any group keeps pushing this kind of crap, I'm going to criticize them for it. It isn't due to partisanship, but rather some basic appreciation for reality and repulsion from blatant lies. Please also note that I have posted articles in the past that have gone after environmentalists for unfounded opposition to natural gas drilling and fracking.

Bryant wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:Hmm...which republican has based a campaign on the idea that birth control is bad?

(BTW...you're right about Ron Paul).

This guy?

*Laughing* Well, ya got me on that. He does say that contraception is wrong. I dont know that I would say its the central issue of his campaign though.

I think its important to point out that Santorum is a Roman Catholic. The Catholic church's position is against contraception I think. So that's where that is coming from. So you are right on that.

Its also important to remember that many Christian (VOTERS) are not in agreement with him on contraception. I, myself, believe strongly in most forms of contraception. But I'm not Catholic. I do agree with him (surprise surprise) on the issue of homosexuality though. I believe it is an act of depravity. (I would never condone, however, imprisoning or physically harming gays, and would not vote for someone who did). Its God's place to judge these people...not mine.

Santorum's position on traditional family values, abortion, etc, is against very Christian Conservative and in line with my own thinking. However, as to those issues, he has said:

But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?'

Thats important I think. Also shows that, despite what MSNBC and other left wing media types hope to show, contraception is NOT what he bases his campaign on.

He says he's against Stem Cell research. I am too....with 1 exception. It is my understanding that there are other ways to gather stem cells without killing embryos. If so, then I support those ways and would like to see them explored further. My father died of Alzheimers in 2005 and I often wonder if stem cell research might have saved him. So if there is an option short of infanticide (which is what abortion is), then I'd be willing to look into it.

I like Rick. I think he's a good man. He has supported efforts to fight global AIDS, provide assistance to orphans and vulnerable children in developing countries, combat genocide in Sudan, and offer third world debt relief. I like this. This shows compassion. He also supports funding autism research, fighting tuberculosis, and providing housing for people with AIDS.

Back to his view on contraception. The reason I dont worry too much about his stance on that is this. I dont think he would or could do anything about it. I dont see how he could. Trojan is not gonna be shut down if Santorum won the presidency. He might lead the charge against Federal funding of Planned Parenthood, but Americans will still have easy access to contraception.

Marconius wrote:

I guess some people just write and post things without ever really thinking.

So the GOP is the party of old rich white men eh? I guess that is why over half of those "rich" white men voted for the Dems last time. I guess old rich white men make up more than 1/3 of our population. If what you say is really true, you should have made sure your husband was a Republican. That way you would be rich yourself and be on easy street. Hell, Dennis would be rich and wouldn't have to worry about unemployment at the moment.

Lol! Get em Mark! Lol!

Marconius wrote:You wanna know who the republican party really is? I work with thousands of them. They are by-and-large high school educated, blue collar workers (you know, those non-union workers whose tax you wanna take so you can have more free stuff). Most make less than the average Democrat (Dems tend to be white collar, collage educated individuals).

They are here in the South. I dunno about the north and west. But you are right in that most of the people I know here fit the description you gave.

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:
I asked Bryant why he spends so much time specifically looking for things to ridicule conservatives with.

This goes back to something I posted ages ago (maybe a year ago). The internet is like an echo chamber: people tend to only look at news outlets/sites that reinforce your own worldview and ignore anything that doesn't. So, left wing/democrats will look at the Huffington Post, the New York Times and MSNBC and ignore/make fun of FOX News, AM radio and the Washington times, and right wing/conservatives will do the opposite (for example). So, Bryant is spending his time on the former which is obviously going to come up with anti-conservative articles. I'll admit that I'd be guilty of that from time to time too, altho I try to mix it up a bit by reading Fox, the Daily Telegraph and other conservative sites every so often (have the fox news app on my iphone for example, the only news app i have there besides breakingnews.ie and thejournal.ie, and they all get used equally)

(And let's not bother bringing up the term "liberal media bias", that horse was flogged to death and beyond in the myspace days, never mind the facebook group.... How's about we split the difference and agree that there is one but it's not totally the vast lefty New World Order conspiracy that it's made out to be by the right?)

OK, here's a challenge for ppl so. For the next week or 2, try to spend at least half as much time as you do on your "favourite" news sites on the news sites of "the opposition", get a feel for the mindset so you know where everyone here is coming from. Sounds like an idea?

Oh dude. Thats like asking me to eat liver. Lol!

About the best I can do is watch CNN. MSNBC and the Huffington Post are such left wing bomb throwers that I could never stomach that. My blood pressure wont take it. Lol!

But while I do watch Fox news nightly, I do get much of my news from AP and Reuters sources. Mainly because I know most of you completely discount anything by Fox news. But to be fair, Rachael Maddow is every bit as left wing as Sean Hannity is right wing. But I didnt criticize Bryant for sourcing her in his responce earlier to me because he got a direct quote in the video from Santorum. I think Maddow may have exaggerated Santorum's stance on a variety of things, but that direct quote nailed me.

But just let me source Hannity or OReilley on something and see what happens.

Bryant wrote:
It really bothers me to look to half the country and see the Conservapedia effect in action (Conservapedia's founder was offended by what he perceived as a systematic liberal bias in Wikipedia, so he elected to create his own site dedicated to conservative 'facts'). Some good examples of this are AGW, Evolution/Age of Earth, the Founder's views on the role of Christianity in government, and Obama's citizenship.

Hmm...thats one up on me. I'd never heard of Conservapedia. I'll have to check that out.

Bryant wrote:In regard to the former, there is a very strong scientific consensus behind warming, which in turn is based on thousands of different peer reviewed analysis that all come to more or less the same conclusion (before you go tin-foil hat on me and play the conspiracy card, keep in mind the way one gets ahead in science is by blowing gaping holes in the status quo, not by jumping on the band wagon). AGW is a FACT and in and of its self has nothing to do with politics. The science doesn't say that we should do this or that, but rather that it is happening.

I dunno about AGW, but we were taught in the Boy Scouts and 4H club when I was a kid, that man can wreak havoc on our environment. Though I have come to no conclusion that what Al Gore is saying has any basis in fact, I do believe that mankind needs to preserve our clean air and waters. I was raised in the country where we raised cattle and have a little farm of my own. (We have horses now). We used to raise our own gardens and if I were in better health, I'd most certainly start growing a garden again. I believe strongly in things like that. I hate pollution and sewage in our air and water. And I am probably over compassionate when it comes to the wildlife here. We dont allow any hunting on our land. And I do not support the NRA anymore (though I used to).

Bryant wrote: The reason that this has become politicized is because the policy (ie political side) that would be required doesn't fit with the GOP world view (the GOP small government response would likely simply be 'yes this is a problem, but no we aren't going to do anything,' which would sound bad), so they instead elected to try to politicize the scientists (scientists actually tend to try to avoid politics, because if one where caught mixing political ideology with their work they'd likely loose all credibility with their peers, this makes us easy targets because we usually are afraid to fight back). Because of this, you see all kinds of GOP fueled conspiracy theories and misinformation floating around trying to obscure the public's understanding of valid science.

I agree that many movers and shakers in the GOP wont do anything about global warming. Its one of the things I disagree with Hannity on. Also its probably important to understand that the left has done its own fair share of politicizing this issue. Seems I recall some leaked emails between some global warming folks that came to light.

Personally I believe the GOP is largely supported by big business and they dont wanna bite the hand that feeds em. Similar to Obama not wanting to bite the left wing liberal hand that feeds him. Imo, though, there ought to be a way for business to thrive and hire workers and bring back manufacturing in America WITHOUT harming our environment.

Bryant wrote:Likewise, the age of the Earth and macro-evolution are also scientific FACTS. Evolution is probably the second most tested scientific principle (behind, of course, gravity), and yet it has held up to literally millions of scientific tests. Not only is it supported by studies of genetics and organisms with short life spans (evolution tends to be relatively slow, however when you pick a species who's life span is a matter of days, you can monitor changes relatively rapidly), but also by what paleontologists and archeologists have found in the fossil record.

I dunno about this stuff. I do believe that, say, horses may have come from Zebras. But I would never agree that horses came from, say...fish or birds. So thats a form of evolution isnt it?

Bryant wrote:The age of the Earth is likewise incredibly well established as being considerably older 6Ka (we've got it nailed as over 4Ga). These are scientific facts, yet I only know of one GOP affiliated politician who isn't afraid of admitting to accepting it (and look what that got him). Instead Republicans in several states are trying to marginalize the teaching of evolution in public schools (there where at least six such bills introduced by Republicans in January alone!).

Probably so. Personally, even though I'm a Christian Conservative, I believe the earth is probably 4.5 billion years old, give or take an eon. An old earth doesnt bother me in the least and is not, (IMO) incompatible with Biblical teaching. Christians who claim otherwise probably dont understand 2 Peter 3:8 or Psalm 90:4. The term 'thousand' not being literal btw.

Bryant wrote:If you turn on your TV or AM radio today you probably wouldn't have to look too long to find someone ranting about how this country was meant to be a Christian nation. We've had Rick Santorum go up on stage and argue that if you aren't Christian, you don't deserve civil rights.

Wait a sec. Are you referring to when Santorum said if you are gay you dont deserve the privelage of marriage"? I think he actually said

You’re not entitled “to special treatment under the law…[Marriage is] not a right...

.

Bryant wrote:Finally, we have the topic of Obama's citizenship and the Birther movement.

I thought that had largely been debunked, much like the 911 Truther movement.

Bryant wrote:@ Miles and Marc:

While it is true that I do tend to post a lot of material criticizing Republicans, it really isn't motivated by some partisan desire to terrorize 'the other side' (heck, I'm a registered Republican!), but rather that FOX News and many currently popular Republicans have made a horrid habit of spouting things that are simply factually incorrect. It really bothers me to look to half the country and see the Conservapedia effect in action (Conservapedia's founder was offended by what he perceived as a systematic liberal bias in Wikipedia, so he elected to create his own site dedicated to conservative 'facts'). Some good examples of this are AGW, Evolution/Age of Earth, the Founder's views on the role of Christianity in government, and Obama's citizenship.

In regard to the former, there is a very strong scientific consensus behind warming, which in turn is based on thousands of different peer reviewed analysis that all come to more or less the same conclusion (before you go tin-foil hat on me and play the conspiracy card, keep in mind the way one gets ahead in science is by blowing gaping holes in the status quo, not by jumping on the band wagon). AGW is a FACT and in and of its self has nothing to do with politics. The science doesn't say that we should do this or that, but rather that it is happening. The reason that this has become politicized is because the policy (ie political side) that would be required doesn't fit with the GOP world view (the GOP small government response would likely simply be 'yes this is a problem, but no we aren't going to do anything,' which would sound bad), so they instead elected to try to politicize the scientists (scientists actually tend to try to avoid politics, because if one where caught mixing political ideology with their work they'd likely loose all credibility with their peers, this makes us easy targets because we usually are afraid to fight back). Because of this, you see all kinds of GOP fueled conspiracy theories and misinformation floating around trying to obscure the public's understanding of valid science.

Likewise, the age of the Earth and macro-evolution are also scientific FACTS. Evolution is probably the second most tested scientific principle (behind, of course, gravity), and yet it has held up to literally millions of scientific tests. Not only is it supported by studies of genetics and organisms with short life spans (evolution tends to be relatively slow, however when you pick a species who's life span is a matter of days, you can monitor changes relatively rapidly), but also by what paleontologists and archeologists have found in the fossil record. If one could scientifically disprove micro and macro evolution and propose a better model, then they'd become famous and probably land a job at a top university and be invited into the Academy. If any actual evidence where to turn up suggesting evolution was incorrect, there is all the incentive in the world to peruse it, however nothing of the type has emerged (instead what you get are religious fanatics who have no clue about evolution, yet like to ramble on about utter nonsense before scientifically illiterate audiences who are already predisposed to the speakers conclusion). The age of the Earth is likewise incredibly well established as being considerably older 6Ka (we've got it nailed as over 4Ga). These are scientific facts, yet I only know of one GOP affiliated politician who isn't afraid of admitting to accepting it (and look what that got him). Instead Republicans in several states are trying to marginalize the teaching of evolution in public schools (there where at least six such bills introduced by Republicans in January alone!).

If you turn on your TV or AM radio today you probably wouldn't have to look too long to find someone ranting about how this country was meant to be a Christian nation. We've had Rick Santorum go up on stage and argue that if you aren't Christian, you don't deserve civil rights. We've had Herman Cain say that he would treat members of a different religious group worse than Christians (not in those words, but that was the effect). We've had Huckabee (who really does seem like a nice guy, but he's still wrong) and the folks over at Wall Builders arguing that America was meant to be a theocracy. None of these are remotely true. The Treaty of Tripoli (drafted by a Washington appointee, unanimously ratified by the Senate made up by the framers of the Constitution, and signed by John Adams) contained a clause explicit saying that this wasn't the case. Likewise sentiment can be found in the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison (near bottom of page, speech for Bill of Rights).

Finally, we have the topic of Obama's citizenship and the Birther movement. While the origins of the Birther conspiracy go back to one of Hillary Clinton's supporters during the Democratic primary, it failed to gain steam with Democrats. It did, however ignite in 08 with certain GOP voters, especially after the conspiracy began being discussed on Fox News (despite having already been repeatedly debunked). The conspiracy was again later revived by GOP hopeful Donald Trump. I anticipate we will see it again this fall. The conspiracy has been repeatedly debunked and shown as without merit, yet it clings on because it fits part of the GOP narrative (as do the Muslim and anti-Christian components).

So long as any group keeps pushing this kind of crap, I'm going to criticize them for it. It isn't due to partisanship, but rather some basic appreciation for reality and repulsion from blatant lies. Please also note that I have posted articles in the past that have gone after environmentalists for unfounded opposition to natural gas drilling and fracking.

Fair enough. Of course you and Miles witnessed the clash Dennis and I had about conservatism and the Republican party. I am a die-hard conservative, but have never (and as long as they remain hijacked by the extreme religious right will never) been a Republican. Of course I have been around long enough to know what certain individuals mean when they say Republicans. They are lumping classic US conservatives in with that group. Bottom line is that a conservative is not, by default, a right winger. They only wish to preserve whatever was the original intent of those who founded whatever country it is they call home. In my case it is the idea of our Founding Fathers, while in the case of our Irish Friend, a conservative over there would be wanting to conserve the principles laid out in 1937. An Irish conservative should be slightly more to the left than me, while I should be (and am) left of the current Republican party leaders (and the current crop of Presidential hopefuls).

In the end, the only difference between a Progressive and a Conservative should be:

A progressive looks at a prospective bill and thinks about how much good it will do if implemented correctly.
A conservative looks at a prospective bill and thinks about how much damage it will do if implemented incorrectly.

So far, judging by the state of our affairs.....massive debt, no improvement in anything the bloated government has tried in my lifetime, increasing restrictions and governmental control, increasing inefficiency as the government grows, permits needed for almost every aspect of life and business, etc., etc,.......us real conservatives have been right. Too bad our population has gotten too fat and too lazy and too complacent to even realize the danger ahead of us if this continues. Instead we bitch when government is denied more control. We loose ourselves while celebrating dead crackheads. We blame everyone else for our own shortcomings and failures. Overall a crapstorm waiting to happen. But what do I know. According to recent "scientific" studies, I'm pretty dumb.

Dennis324 wrote:

Marconius wrote:You wanna know who the republican party really is? I work with thousands of them. They are by-and-large high school educated, blue collar workers (you know, those non-union workers whose tax you wanna take so you can have more free stuff). Most make less than the average Democrat (Dems tend to be white collar, collage educated individuals).

They are here in the South. I dunno about the north and west. But you are right in that most of the people I know here fit the description you gave.

Trust me, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho has even more friggin rednecks than Louisiana does. I haven't met that many people from Oregon or Washington, but I'm pretty certain that national averages hold in those two states.

Marconius wrote:
So far, judging by the state of our affairs.....massive debt, no improvement in anything the bloated government has tried in my lifetime, increasing restrictions and governmental control, increasing inefficiency as the government grows, permits needed for almost every aspect of life and business, etc., etc,.......us real conservatives have been right. Too bad our population has gotten too fat and too lazy and too complacent to even realize the danger ahead of us if this continues. Instead we bitch when government is denied more control. We loose ourselves while celebrating dead crackheads. We blame everyone else for our own shortcomings and failures. Overall a crapstorm waiting to happen. But what do I know. According to recent "scientific" studies, I'm pretty dumb.

Well...I dont think you are dumb at all. I dont think anyone here is dumb.

I think what bothers me most about the current state of American Conservatism is that (no offense) it has been infected by people who are not really classic conservatives, but rather isolationists like Ron Paul. I mean...yes, you can be a Conservative AND a Libertarian. But I cannot see how one can be a Libertarian AND a Republican. And its certainly possible to be too conservative. While I agree with Paul that it would be a good idea to eliminate the Depts of Energy, HUD, Commerce, and Education, and eliminate other federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Internal Revenue Service,...he scares me when it comes to the issue of Iran and its current threats to the Mideast. And I do not agree with his position that we severely reduce the CIA. I dont agree with his position of eliminating FEMA either. I'd much prefer that Fema be restructured and better managed. But I think our nation needs disaster relief and Paul doesnt....because in his view the Constitution doesnt call for it.

What he's forgetting is that while our Constitution doesnt specify that we have FEMA...it does say we are to 'Promote the General Welfare'. Why cant libertarians like Paul understand this? But libertarianism seeks to put too much onto the backs of the states. And folks, Alabama, Mississippi and other states are waaay too poor to handle this.

I agree with him on the issue of the Separation of Church and State, affirmative action as well as his opposition to eminent domain. But I strongly disagree with Paul where he opposes the federal law that requires physicians to treat all patients who go to emergency rooms seeking medical care regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Would Paul rather poor people die in the hospital waiting room?

Paul also opposes the War on Drugs. While he has a good pov in that drug users should probably be treated rather than imprisoned, ending the war on drugs would severely curtail our ability of cartels to transport narcotics into our country.

See? While Libertarians have (some) decent ideas, their view of the Constitution is so radical imo that they would wind up harming the country! They are often Conservatives, but are NOT Republicans. And I think there is a Libertarian movement ongoing to infiltrate and redefine the GOP.

Dennis324 wrote:Oh dude. Thats like asking me to eat liver. Lol!

Nah, I'm not that cruel.