Originally Posted by dreadgeek
(Post 179236)
On TRMS last night, she had a guest on who was a former Bush admin flunkie who is Muslim talking about the ginned-up controversy regarding the community center in NYC (it's not a mosque, I'm not going to dignify the other side's narrative by calling it a mosque) and he was mentioning some of the loudest voices in this controversy. He said something interesting, to wit that the people who really got this ball rolling were known quantities in conservative circles but were SO kooky that they were on the margins and that now they have an opening. So now they are in out of the cold and getting a lot of national media attention and since the media does not care if what you say is true or not, particularly if what you say is controversial they will continue to get a platform.
The enthusiasm gap--that is part of the current narrative of "if you are an incumbent you've *already* been voted out of office" is entirely a creation of the Democrats. Look, I'm willing to bet anyone reading this that if you went around to a Tea Party rally or Sarah Palin appearance and asked what the conservative policy prescription is for X (where X is some issue needing policy) *perhaps* 1 in 20 could tell you what the GOP or Tea Party position is. What you *would* hear is that they'll "stand up for freedom" or "support small businesses" or "promote family values" or "not cower before the jihadists" or "protect our borders" but none of those are *policy* they are slogans. The point is that most conservatives don't *know* and don't seem to particularly *care* what actual *policies* would be implemented, rather they support conservative politicians because they believe that those politicians will stand up for the values that the rank-and-file believe in. In contrast, most liberal politicians don't know whether politicians from their part of the spectrum will stand-up for anything OTHER than their own re-election.
Do I think that *any* of the crop of candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 is opposed to gay marriage on principal? No, not in the least. They are just too cowardly to stand up and *say* that they support gay marriage lest their conservative opponent paint them as "out of touch with mainstream America". So the problem the Dems have going into 2010 and 2012 is that rank-and-file members of the Democratic coalition--even very wonky folks like myself--have no idea what hill, if any, they are willing to die on. Will I vote? Yes. Will I vote the top of the ballot? Almost certainly although I'm tempted not to. Will I have any real enthusiasm about doing so? Not particularly.
Now, if it seems that liberals, progressives or Democrats (not synonyms for one another) have a raw deal that conservatives do not let me just say "not so fast". If you are a conservative reading this I want you to think about this: how long has the GOP been promising to get rid of Roe v. Wade? Going on four decades now. Is Roe still the law of the land? Yep. As tempting as it might be to point the finger at the Democrats in Congress or the three Democratic presidents we've had since 1973 it doesn't work. In 2002, American conservatives had the trifecta--they had the Executive branch, all BUT owned the Legislative branch and had the Rehnquist court which, while not a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP, was entirely friendly to the idea of being done and rid of Roe. This state of affairs persisted for four *years*. The same could be said about gay rights. If conservatives were *ever* going to roll the clock back and make America actively hostile to queers as a matter of law and custom, they had their window of opportunity in that same period from 2002 until 2009. They did nothing. Why? Because while conservative politicians say they share your values, that doesn't mean that they *do* share those values. It just means that they recognize that running on a platform of "I make $500,000 a year, the people who are my actual constituency make $500,000 a year, we think that you should pay more taxes to fund tax cuts for us" is a losing proposition. However, running on a platform of "Muslims want to institute sharia law, while mandating that abortions will be forced on women by Hispanic doctors who are here illegally, all so that the gays and lesbians can get married and we will stop that" IS a winning platform. Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere for one simple reason: conservative fundraising is dependent upon its very existence. If Roe did not exist, the RNC would need to invent it.
Cheers
Aj
|
