Your middle group, the "value conservatives", is the only one large enough to play a signficiant role. The neocons are simply parasites on power (your observation that they will shed their mantle and become democrats again is brilliant.) Libertarians and "small statists" are about as politically influential as Greens and socialists.

Posted by: seneca | Oct 12 2008 17:00 utc | 1

There's saying that there are two sorts of people; those who place people into categories and those who don't. I would be very leery of predicting this election based on categorical stereotypes.

I live near the top of a hill, just outside of a smaller (pop. ca. 140,000) city. One end of the road that goes over this hill past my home terminates inside of city limits, the other end, on a rural highway. I am acquainted with many, if not most of the people on this stretch of road.

Here's the odd part. You won't find a single McCain-Palin sign on the road that's north of me and you won't find a single Obama-Biden sign on the road south of me. I would be loathe to classify any of the people with either sign as raving liberals or conservatives. Educated professionals are present in both camps.

This election, in spite of some very obvious differences between the parties, is going to be very hard to call, I think.

As for me, I've considered putting up a sign that says "Neither".

Posted by: Obelix | Oct 12 2008 17:14 utc | 2

The atomizing tendency of Christ-crazy churches could support a decentralized militia movement like Clinton had, only more fanatical. Establishment of churches, after all, is the only outlet for entrepreneurship in fundamentalist strongholds. They will be fortified by talent like the White Supremacists who signed up to kill wogs in Iraq. They learned a lot. If the next administration doesn't see our first domestic suicide bombers, I'll eat my hat.

Posted by: ...---... | Oct 12 2008 17:14 utc | 3

I've been telling anyone who asks this question that it will most likely go like this:

+ First, some small collection of wingnut extremists will go off their meds, do something scary violent and start issuing threats of more mayhem. The rest of the conservative tribe will fail to denounce them without telling qualifications attached.

+ Next, the Obama administration, with the aid of the Democratic majority in Congress, will respond by directing the formidable new powers of the unitary executive in an aggressive domestic anti-terrorist program. The conservative tribe will be reduced to seeking relief from the court system, which they stacked during the Bush years. That will be slow, and produce results too slowly for their liking.

+ Once the wingnuts start to understand what it feels like to live under the same surveillance and oppression they've been applying to the anti-war and environmental activist movement all these years, the backlash will arise. I can't really predict how that backlash will organize, but their playbook from the 1990's is certainly where they will go. Expect a resurgent interest in playing at soldier in the woods among wingnut "militia" enthusiasts. The traditional far right fascist groups will grow. The neo-confederate losers will get louder and sillier. We might even see public rallies for wingnut stupidity grow large enough to fill a stadium or two.

How bad could it get? Don't know. I see it possibly devolving to the point where NORTHCOM has to send troops to restore order in some small town where the wingnuts have gone all Whiskey Rebellion on us. Hard to see it realistically getting any worse than that. The wingnuts are cowards at heart, and they won't really have the American moral equivalent of an aristocracy to keep them focused on making the kind of trouble that could be a real threat to national security.

Our pseudo-nobility is pretty tired of Reagan/Bush incompetence. Once the wingnut welfare dole from them dries up, I predict a lot of our wingnuts will find more useful things to do with themselves while the Democrats set about the task of cleaning up the messes they made.

Posted by: s9 | Oct 12 2008 17:39 utc | 4

I was raised in a community that believed the Clinton administration was pure evil, and that the Republicans in Congress were the Good Guys. Idle threats against the Democratic Party figurehead and calling him a traitor and so forth, is nothing new, in my experience. No more will come of it than under Clinton, is my tentative guess.

For this television-tribalism, this blindness to the fact that the two parties are factions of one Power, is precious to the Power as "culture war"; it would not do to let it become real war, because it might become uncontrolable.

Posted by: Cloud | Oct 12 2008 17:41 utc | 5

Typical head-in-the-clouds thinking on your part. Why do you belive that McCain can possible lose this election, even though he is losing right now? Have you no faith in Karl Rove's evil genius? Look what he did with the sow's ear of Bush's personal history.

Have you been wondering about the latest Obama/terrorist assertions floating about? At first it sounded like an act of desperation, then I realized the method behind it.

We can expect a terrorist attack. Nothing on the scale of 9/11, that would look bad for the Republicans, who are supposed to be keeping us safe.

They will be able to disrupt a massive plot, but a minor attack would still take place, just enough to get people hysterical and frothing and paranoically suspicious of anyone vaguely Islamic. Like Obama, of course.

And then the authorities could make two points: that they were able to stop the worst of it due to the powers vested in them by the Patriot Act, but that some of those terrorists got away because of restrictions placed on them by those mamby-pamby, terrorist-coddling liberals. Like Obama, of course.

And better to vote for the devil you know (McCain) than for a fellow who sits around his living room, scoffing at hard-working fans of the Second Amendment, reading from the Koran and chanting Che Guevara slogans in between doing bong hits with former Weather Underground radicals...

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 12 2008 17:44 utc | 6

John Taplin has an excellent post on this subject, I highly recommend it:

The Future of The Republican Party

Posted by: EGrise | Oct 12 2008 18:03 utc | 7

There's only one kind of republican that matters, the tv talking points republican. Foxxx and wants-fox's-ratings CNN will be a parade of whores for the skilled folks at the RNC. The shrill noise will be deafening, paused only by Obama himself speaking, and if he does it as well as he seems to be able to, he might have a chance at keeping his approval rating halfway ok through the money and blood pain we will be talking post W. Congressional Repub-tards will get 10 times the coverage Dem congressers did under W, frothing and railing making for ratings and a chance at getting the executive back in (wholly) lawless hands. Racist news will be a new news category meme. Good times!

Posted by: aumana | Oct 12 2008 19:31 utc | 8

your shallow, repetitive america bashing gets less interesting by the minute.

whop pays you to crank this stuff out every day?

Posted by: grow up | Oct 12 2008 23:24 utc | 9

this is not going to be the most coherent post but hopefully ...

the wing-nuts do'nt have much of a narrative now besides -- Obama is a terrist/Muslim/not-White ... and its pretty lame already.

if Obama wins a couple of Southern States, and you can add a long string of down-ticket Dem seats, its going to scare the cr*ap out of the Republican Southern-Strategists. And without a Southern-Strategy thats fully reliable & consistent (90% is not enough), the Republican Party is in very big trouble. If they have to fight the Dems for a sizable White swing-voting bloc across the South, its pretty much over for the Southern-Strategy & todays Republican party as we know it.

the wing-nuts are actually Obama's best friend -- especially, the more irrational, angry & intolerant they become. The more brutish & louder they become, the more turned off the average American is going to be. And as long as Obama does not hand them a "Whitewater" or "bimbo" scandal, he'll be fine.

Obama is going to load-up his cabinet with some key very smart insiders -- the type who will not be shy about pushing "counter-contexts". Hence its going to be much harder for the wing-nuts to demonize & distort Obama's economic policy if Warren Buffet is Sec of Treasury. Likewise foreign-policy if Biden plays a big role as expected. Also, Obama might be wise to pick a Republican for attorney-general. Someone like Paul Craig Roberts might also be very helpful in some capacity. PCR is a very very smart guy. His politics are standard conservative but he really knows what he's talking about & he's not scared of anybody. He's the type who can run any department. Obama might want to put PCR at Commerce.

Obama is going to keep his high-tech campaign machine going, though in a more appropriate mode. He also has a pretty massive low-tech effort mostly targeting voter-registration & early voting. He's going to keep that going too, again in a more suitable mode.

In Congress, Pelosi/Reid have been pretty disappointing. Not much leadership or backbone. But Obama will establish his own caucus on both floors to push them. Obama is also going to do a much better job of cultivating "moderate" Congress Republicans than any president since LBJ.

Americans are starting to recognize the dysfunction they've been living with and they are much less willing to be distracted.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 13 2008 0:40 utc | 10

jony_b_cool, you seem to have a much rosier view of Obama than is justified by what we've seen so far... In particular, I strongly doubt that his effect on Congress would be all you wish for.

Realistically, he's done a piss-poor job as one of my senators so far, and I don't expect him to become any more effective in Congress if he's no longer in the legislative branch at all.

As regards the original question, I'm getting pretty tired of this right/left dichotomy being bandied about. The real question is how the vast majority of people, who are being screwed over by both parties will react to continued screwage. Sadly, the answer, helped along by the efficient indoctrination of our public school and university systems, is "they won't".

Posted by: Boris | Oct 13 2008 2:07 utc | 11

first on "screwage". I love the word. And I finally have a third post for wasteage & sewage. Had considered bondage but I'll share this with you and its from my friend in the Bronx, a practicing dominatrix, she buys diapers in bulk from Costco and she tells me they are mostly top Wall Street types. As for the whips, the chains and all the other stuff, thats another story.

on right/left, your right. But we are'nt going to be able to talk about that with any seriousness till we have someone who's at least halfway competent in charge.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 13 2008 4:59 utc | 12

The neo-conservatives were never really outside the Democratic sphere. I doubt Obama is all that far from the neo-conservative world view. The only difference is that he understands that like the queen on a chess board, the US military is at its most powerful when used as a far reaching and constant threat, rather than actually smashing things up. If its not actually fighting it can threaten (or protect) every place on the planet at the same time. If its silly enough to actually get involved in a fight, well it can only fight one or two enemies at once, and the whole time it fights it threatens no-one else. Its cheaper and more effective (or was) to forcefully use soft power.

Neo-conservatives are just a stupid form of Democrat whose entire library consists of Churchill's "The Second World War" and too many Tom Clancy novels.

Value conservatives will love having Obama as president. The whole point of being a values conservative is that you can blame someone else for your problems. That's hard to do when your party controls the presidency and Congress. They always enjoyed the ranting and never really liked the doing. They can go back to ranting against the liberal elite while still watching Hollywood movies and hoping their daughter makes it like Britney Spears. The world will make sense again for them.

Despite their strong online presence, genuine Libertarians are a tiny fringe group, only a few percent of the electorate. They matter about as much as Ralph Nader supporters.

I don't think that "the classic small state conservatives" really exist. I think what they really are are pro big business conservatives, who support a small state whenever it suits big business. They are the real power and they will be happy with Obama. He's more compenent than Bush and nothing I have seen of him so far suggests Obama will do anything to upset this group.

Posted by: swio | Oct 13 2008 9:04 utc | 13

your shallow, repetitive america bashing gets less interesting by the minute.[email protected]

Dear troll,

"less interesting" because it tries to develop a differential typology of right-wing elements, one element at a time? Does it fail? Can it be improved upon? Is it unfair? Or better yet: can you match it with a differential typology of the left? Do you engage in that sort of study? No? If not, is it because you find it infantile? Too easy? Beneath you?

Is thinking beneath you? Is thinking infantile? Is it "grown up" not to think--not to try to think? Do you think so? Do you think at all? Are you grown up? Are you paid for growing up? Are you paid for anything? Gainfully employed? Employable? If so, by whom? If not, why not?

To this I will confess: you tempt me into my worst inclinations towards contempt and disdain. This is how trolls get fed. A rather strange kind of nourishment, but nourishment all the same.

I have to go now.

Posted by: alabama | Oct 13 2008 10:22 utc | 14

less interesting said the troll.

less interesting than what? less interesting than the repetitive pap he/she hears/reads at Free Republic or LGF? Is that possible?

I think there must be a good thesis for a PhD in the study of rightwing trolls. what makes them tick? do they honestly believe in what they write or are they merely paid idiots. anyone who actually benefits from rightwing politics already knows better than to waste their time on insignificant blogs.

poor pathetic and scared little people. I would feel sorry for them if they were not so vile.

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 13 2008 10:38 utc | 15

@ alabama 14

Dan—both you and alabama are so spot on. It is fear that moves the Right. They are afraid of everything, but mostly change in any form.

Posted by: Spyware | Oct 13 2008 11:13 utc | 16

Tell me again about the difference between neocons and neolibs. Okay, the neolibs will do other countries more efficiently, that's it. IOW the neocons have already "wiggle[d] themselves into the Democratic realm". American Exceptionalism and US world hegemony is a principal factor in both parties.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 13 2008 15:42 utc | 17

Apparently the US pres. campaign has derailed completely. Rabble rousing, racist slurs, etc. from the Repubs, Palin over the top or beyond the pale (still trying to think of a good horror nick name for her that is why the pale, pale being a post or stick, basically), McCain backtracking etc (see some previous posts.)

McCain seems to be occupying the position of place holder, the loser candidate who plays his valiant citizen role, à la Kerry, saving democracy on a not-so-white horse. The indignity of it all is mortifying, even experienced third-hand. Tangential to the financial crash, no European pol will ever again point to the US as a ‘vibrant democracy’ .. even that midget-brain Sarkozy has become more Gaullist recently. (De Gaulle wanted to keep the Brits out of the future “EU”.) Ignore, I tend to ramble...

From a secular, progressive, modernist, yada yada pov, it is easy to sneer and scoff at the trailer-park Bible-thumpers. Nevertheless, they represent the only revolutionary force in the US - so weak as to not deserve that name...

They have been co-opted through a clever scam which began long ago, became blatant under Bush the Second’s First Reign (aka Rove). They were brought into the fold (!) through an orchestrated association between conventional moral values of the individual kind, appeals to tradition of a folksy-cultural type, roots, American exceptionalism and isolationism, not to mention white supremacy married with ,or coupled with, the elite’s economic paradigm - free market BS dressed up in terms of personal responsibility, perpetual economic growth, etc.

God practically ordained you could reap impressive profits from screwing over your foolish neighbor. In this way, the potential revolutionaries fell into the trap of old-time peons under religious sway in a hierarchical scheme that justifies itself with halos etc. and rewards its adherents. Protestant reformist zeal, successful (so to speak from *one* pov) in the past, turned into acceptance of dominance and was channeled into trivia, went past its sell date.

At present, we have the mainstream (and the media never mistook that), the main forces, political and economic, even the military-industrial complex, whatever, behind the stability, quasi-Republican candidate, who has the advantage of a fresh face and profile and a discourse of hope, renewal, repair, a brightly lit future, Beacons on the Hill, etc. And the uber conservative forces are left to handle the de-fanging, legitimizing, semi-supporting, hand holding, the rag-tag band of potential protestors. Perhaps not precisely planned, that was/is Palin’s function. What else is she good for?

The campaign, according to one commentator on some board, is ‘ass backwards.’ The fraud of the two-party system is exposed, in plain sight.

Ppl like to call it a ‘culture war’ - metro incl. gay Blues against heartland Red necks...oppositions that are partly economic and masquerade as ideological and are upped by coloring states red or blue according to a slim percentage.

What will the grass-roots poorer repubs. and religionist do when they, the true heart of Amerika (their TV candidates) lose?

Nothing.

They have been de-fanged, were always complicit in the system, bit of both, there will be no uprising, no reaction beyond sobbing, cursing, or praying... Their living is dependent on the present arrangements, the Gvmt. subsidies, water, communal halls, infrastructure, huge subsidies (agri), ethanol cash, free public schooling, Medicare, tax arrangements, etc. even mortgages, still today. (Ok that was alongst the trad divisions which don’t mean much.)

The redistribution of wealth in the US, very considerable but always denied, will not be questioned. Palin will satisfy them, as a failed icon she will do fine in ‘hearts’... and on Hallmark cards!

Posted by: Tangerine | Oct 13 2008 16:09 utc | 18

don, Tell me again about the difference between neocons and neolibs.

Obama, Brzezinski, and the Neolib-Neocon Family Feud

the main difference is that the Israel-centric neocons, like their Jabotinskyite collaborators, hate Arabs and Muslims, whereas the neolibs are indifferent and far more interested in doing the bidding of the bankers, the IMF and World Bank, transnational corporations, that is to say advancing the process of “free trade” (as in unhindered looting and plunder) as well as ushering in world government, a process long envisioned by Brzezinski’s mentor, David Rockefeller.

“These neocon prescriptions, of which Israel has its equivalents, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel,” Brzezinski told Nathan Gardels, editor-in-chief of the journal of social and political thought published by Blackwell/Oxford and Global Services of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate/Tribune. “They will totally turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East’s population against the United States. The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves. Eventually, if neo-con policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well.” Naturally, neolibs of Brzezinski’s ilk prefer less obvious and immediately bloody measures. Moreover, the designs of Israel do not figure directly into the plan, a prospect horrifying to neocons and the AIPAC crowd.

“Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn’t matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way,” writes Philip Giraldi. As Ronald D. Asmus and Kenneth M. Pollack write for the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post, “Neoliberals, among whom we number ourselves, believe in political preemption first and military preemption only as a last resort. We supported the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq because we concluded that force was the only way to lance these boils. But force will not work as a normal tool of policy or social engineering in the Middle East. Our goal must be to have the Arabs embrace democracy and modernization, not to force it down their throats.”

don, IOW the neocons have already "wiggle[d] themselves into the Democratic realm".

they make whatever efforts to wiggle themselves into whatever party will do their bidding. one imagines they use the identification to taint those who aren't of their ilk as a weapon. like this example (hat tip swio)

The neo-conservatives were never really outside the Democratic sphere. I doubt Obama is all that far from the neo-conservative world view.

or by ingratiating themselves into the minds of americans as being of either party, doesn't matter (they were originally dems..

Neo-conservatives are just a stupid form of Democrat whose entire library consists of Churchill's "The Second World War" and too many Tom Clancy novels.

(how benign!)

the 'world view' economically isn't that different between the two, but my theory is the neocons would adopt whatever economic model their competitor dealt in as camouflage, for an economic model is NOT their main priority.

w/the neocons we see more of a push to use american hegemony in the crusade model (ie using christian fundies) to their advantage to carry out ideological conquests.

that is my opinion anyway. you can certainly see their influence in this election w/the demonizing of Obama as muslim and the influence of the aipac crowd to fight their battles on ideological grounds thru info warfare.

i don't think this is important to neolibs. they just want to play ball w/the oil/free trade etc. israel is not on the very top of their list of priorities.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 18:34 utc | 19

Annie,
Israel is bigger with the Dems than with the Repubs. The Jewish vote has always gone overwhelmingly to the Dems.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

Also, the House Democratic Caucus Chair, Rahm Emanuel, a leading Dem fundraiser, is a staunch supporter of Israel and served with the Israeli military in the Yellow Ribbon War.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 13 2008 19:00 utc | 20

* the libertarians somewhat overlapping with
* the classic small state conservatives
* the value conservatives
* the neo-conservatives

b, 3 of these groups are american exceptionalists, one isn't.

one of these groups would have no problem throwing the other 3 under the bus to jump ship for the purpose of expediency, they did it once they would do it again.

The middle group includes a lot of workers who will get screwed by the crisis. It includes the religious nuts. These are the people that think Obama is an Arab and a terrorist. If they find some kind of 'leader' they could become dangerous.

the reason they think obama is a terrorist is because of the last group, the neocons. these middle groups weren't all arabterrorcentric that long ago. heck, they ran around wearing arab headdresses in groups called the Imperial Council Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine for North America

the shiner's still exist as far as i know and has very strong roots in the southern states. let's hope this recent campaign to demonize arabs is a passing phase and limited to the decade after 9/11. the acceptance of the concept of a 'long war' doesn't have to be permanent or self fullfilling. it can be turned around imho.

that said, if the US were to move into a civil war mode, i imagine it would be egged along by an elliot abrams model w/one of those groups antagonizing all others (red and blue)in false flag type operations. but i am not expecting this.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 19:07 utc | 21

Israel is bigger with the Dems than with the Repubs. The Jewish vote has always gone overwhelmingly to the Dems.

i am not silly enough to always connect the jewish vote w/israel. there is a vast difference between the majority of jews and the extremist neocon jewish vote. this isn't israel. most jewish votes consider themselves americans first, whereas many neocons are dual citizenship.

being pro israel is not limited to being a neocon. our official US foreign policy position is a 2 state solution, neocon's is one jerusalem and more settlements.

so yes, dems are very big w/israel, that is NOT the same as having a neocon agenda.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 19:12 utc | 22

most jewish votes consider themselves americans first

i meant voters. check out jstreet, these are not neocons. they vote w/the dem party. their policies are pro israel, pro american policy ie 2 state solution, and they formed to COUNTER aipac and the extremist neocon agenda that's driven the cheney administration.

neocons don't represent jews in america anymore than cheney represents all americans. luckily most jews aren't neocons because i am relying on them to unfront centerstage and on the front lines when it comes to decimating this cancer that has invaded my country.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 19:17 utc | 23

OK, I'll roll the dice.

*drum roll*

Obama will win. Following the election, McCain will disappear from public life altogether. While the republicans are searching for their next presidential hopeful, the values republicans in utter horror at a black president with a Muslim name will rally around Palin and maneuver her to be the republican presidential candidate for the next election. They will either get their way or destroy the party in the process.

Posted by: D. Mathews | Oct 13 2008 19:23 utc | 24

wrt Rahm Emanuel, no comment. he is not known to be 'progressive' and is a salwart dlc man.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 19:24 utc | 25

Oh, my! I only read this after I wrote the above:

Will the “kooks” take over the defeated Republican Party, with Sarah Palin as their Joan of Arc? If so, where would the “Buckley conservatives” go?

Posted by: D. Mathews | Oct 13 2008 19:30 utc | 26

the values republicans in utter horror at a black president with a Muslim name will rally around Palin and maneuver her to be the republican presidential candidate for the next election.

no they won't. there aren't enough of them. they are a fringe group needed to bolster the gop voting rolls. they have made horrible in roads that drive the party but they could never garner enough votes. look at how popular huckleberry was w/this crowd and he sunk like a lead weight.

the whole demonizing of muslims thing is a passing phase, totally unamerican. it won't stick, even if the media is completely entrenched w/neocon influence. there will be a backlash and it is more likely to inflame anti semintism which wouldn't help the situation at all.

the palin ticket has been very unpopular for mcCain. but, i still think their best friend is diebold and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if mcCain and the gop stole another election. but i think people are very wary of this. my cousins from NC, who used to be rethugs sent me an email this morning from blackbox voting!

last night as i was drifting off in front of the tele some news guys, rather and the guy who moderated the last debate were talking about past elections when guys came from behind to win the election, they are prepping the public for it. it aint over til the fat lady sings.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 19:32 utc | 27

d mathews, check out this

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 19:46 utc | 28

d mathews, check out this dkos diary on top of the rec list @ present. it contains the on line photos of numerous (at least 20) gop candidates from their personal web pages. guess won't they don't mention about themselves..their party identification.

the new word they are using is 'independent' like lieberman. ha! the gop brand has been seriously damaged.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 19:47 utc | 29

another thing i noticed in an argument i had w/a rethug on another board, they are trying to claim the mantel of the 'independent' voter, claiming most independents were former gop voters. they aren't. there were so many dems disgusted w/their party (dlc influence) many new registrees signed up as independents, along w/greens and lots of other 'progressives'.

so knowing the independents are a growing group the gop nominees are trying to usurp the 'idea' of themselves as representing them. they don't. the growing trend shown in the debates is they lean towards obama in a 60/40 split.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 19:58 utc | 30

perhaps Barack "John Brown" Obama will rescue White-America from the plantation.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 13 2008 20:42 utc | 31

One thing that my fellow patrons have seem to have forgotten, is who owns the election machines, and the as of yet, still ongoing election fraud issues. I predict a McPalin win via Gore V Bush style disruption. Thanks to Tom delay/Rove like shenaagans.

But you know, don't take my word for it, try, Peter King's.

Peter King "We'll take care of the counting."

New York Representative Peter King in a candid moment admits that the 2004 elections are "already over--the election's over, we won." When the camera woman asks "How do you know that?" Congressman King replies, "it's all over but the counting, and we'll take care care of the counting."

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 13 2008 20:55 utc | 32

Demonizing of Arabs (and Muslims) is a passing phase? The Republican Party is no longer the party of Lincoln. The modern Republican Party owes its strength to the "southern strategy" based on racism by white Americans. Okay, Arabs aren't a race, but they are the current enemy du jour.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 13 2008 22:03 utc | 33

the current enemy du jour

yes, a passing phase imho, being fed by an extremely rich adamant foreign oriented source. it isn't like they have a history of being anti arab per se. like some others we know. this hatred could be transfered to chavez in a heartbeat, or cuba or china or whatever. the only reason this islamphobia is taking place is it is FUNDED and PROMOTED. hell, these people were all anti semites before SOMEBODY got the idea to pull them into the fold to support their cause, not so coincidently right around the time the neonuts gave up on the dem party and decided to take over (and thrash) the gop.

my personal theory is these racist idiot goppers are going to be a lead weight on conservatism and we are hearing the screams from the right as demonstrated by the recent 'party of the 6 pack' talk. where are those conservatives going to go? the dem party? please! they are going to try to this cancer. being known as the party of white trash can't be all that fun.

another thing, social movements are impacted by crisis. lots of these idiots vote against their interests and mouth these conservative talking pts because thrier heros do, like reagan. let them taste some payback, many of them will be screaming for the new deal if it means a paycheck. this is why you're seeing the blue trend thruout, it isn't just the war vote.

The modern Republican Party owes its strength to the "southern strategy" based on racism by white Americans.

no, it owes it's strength to people like rove who feed off these people. it owes it's strength to people like cheney, diebold and the message makers. that strength is dissipating and along with it you are going to be seeing this group is not as massive as it once appeared. it only takes a few to appear to be the majority. it only took one hire from pat roberstons school to place 130 graduates in the justice department, doesn't mean it represents the traditional conservatism.

One thing that my fellow patrons have seem to have forgotten

uncle, that is what i meant by i still think their best friend is diebold and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if mcCain and the gop stole another election......they are prepping the public for it. it aint over til the fat lady sings. in #27

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 22:34 utc | 34

btw, the 6 pack crowd are idiots as we all know. the only reason they are uncritical of israel and pro israel is the conditioning of talk radio and programming like this: THE JOOOOOS all over their message boards. they can't think for themselves and basically blow which ever way they are told because they lack critical thought. which is the whole idea behind the dumbing down america. anything that isn't white and southern can turn on them in a heartbeat. look at how fast they dumped frenchfries and turned on the french. they don't even like people from the east coast for god's sake. if arabs were dropped from the news cycle they would forget about them lickity split. they are much more personally impacted by the immigration issue and mexico.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 22:42 utc | 35

Assuming Obama wins, the right will want to hold George W. Bush accountable. The left and center are already in agreement that W. is the worst president ever. If his incompetence and mendacity end up ushering in an African-American president, the right will be in full agreement with that judgment. If international courts/tribunals come after Bush, he'll have no political base to shield him.

Posted by: Decider | Oct 13 2008 22:45 utc | 36

speaking of the gop imploding Hustler is releasing a porn film featuring a Sarah Palin lookalike and a tank full of stranded Russian soldiers.

Fox's Megyn Kelly was immediately sure that "your average American -- it's offensive, it's disgusting it's dirty -- they wouldn't want to see it."

i don't think sooo!

"Might there be some actual confusion to the non-educated mind out there?" asked Kelly -- who is apparently well-familiar with the Fox audience

you mean joe 6 pack? lol script

PALIN: Oh, I betcha do. I love a big hammer. But I love screwdrivers, too! And wrenches. The fact is I love and respect all of America's diverse tools, big and small. They're what helps make us so great as a nation. Here, let me take that off for ya.

(PALIN takes a seat on the coach beside JOE and starts to undo his belt. He stops her.)

JOE: Let's go take a look at the tanning bed first.

PALIN: Oooh, okay.

(PALIN leads JOE to the tanning salon in the basement. JOE carefully inspects the machine.)

JOE: Looks like there are just a bunch of screws loose.

PALIN: (seductively) You're in luck. I fully support off-shore and on-shore drilling.

(PALIN pounces on JOE and throws him onto the top of the tanning bed. She quickly rips off his jeans.)

PALIN: God almighty! You are hung like a moose. Now I have to eat ya!

JOE: I'm bigger than a moose. Do you have any contraceptives?

PALIN: It's okay. I already took a morning-after pill.

JOE: Um, are you sure it works that way?

PALIN: Are you asking me if I know what a morning-after pill is? Because I totally do! I'll get back to ya with specifics.

(The two proceed to make furious love in a multitude of positions. PALIN amply demonstrates that she has enough experience.)

PALIN: Fuck me harder! HARDER! Pound me until my head is so empty that I can't even remember the name of the one Supreme Court case I actually know! I want it to burn. Burn like a banned book. Oh God, Oh God, OH MY GOD! MAKE ME SEE RUSSIA FROM HERE!

i don't usually go in for porn but i may have to make an exception for this flick.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2008 23:35 utc | 37

Radical friends of S. Palin

I heard this on Democracy Now today. Max Blumenthal about Sarah Palin and living in Alaska.

"...And the reason that the Alaskan Independence Party wanted to do this was to make it easier to form anti-government militias. This is a party that’s been intimately connected to the militia movement on a national level, including figures like Bo Gritz. So, Sarah Palin knew the views of these groups. That’s according to Mark Chryson. She knew his views, but she was willing to work with them to advance her ambition. And she was willing to enact their agenda. So it didn’t matter whether or not she was a member of this group; she was at least a member in spirit."

Posted by: gus | Oct 14 2008 0:22 utc | 38

Follow up on my #32

continuing that train of thought...

what ever happen to the trial? Merry X-mas Tom, you've been pardoned.

Betcha forgot didn ya.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 14 2008 9:33 utc | 39

Darn it, it's late meant to add this...

that clip was from Alexandra Pelosi's HBO film "Diary of a Political Tourist"](yes Nancy's Daughter) where she catches a tipsy Congressman Peter King making a comment at a White House function before the election had even been started declaring that, "It's already over. The Election's over. We Won."

When Pelosi asks, "How do you know that?" King replies, "It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."
This was recorded in he summer of 2003 a year before the 2004 election! Elections have been stolen for the last two presidential races the whole thing is just a sham now.

Sorry kids.. off to watch movies on my eyelids now.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 14 2008 9:40 utc | 40

i'm back wrt this 'passing phase' regarding arab/muslims. i just read this diary (CNN video included) informing On Monday night Campbell Brown delivered a commentary entitled 'So what if Obama were a Muslim or an Arab'.

people are waking up to the onslaught of negative press, the virtual assault on muslims and arabs in the attempt to aggravate and instill hatred into our society of another 'new' ethnic group who have lived amoungst us for as long as all the others. this 'campaign' is less than a decade old and it will be nipped in the bud. people are sick of it.

it won't go unspoken or unnoticed or accepted in silence anymore. a passing phase.

phff, take that.

Posted by: annie | Oct 14 2008 19:46 utc | 41