The Republican Base

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on September 23, 2011

Friday, September 23, 2011

As Promised: The Land of the Morons

Illustration: Keith Tucker at nicely illustrates Rick Perry.
            To us, this is a subject that is not at all interesting and one that should be disposed of with one flush of the mind.  We are addressing it because about half of our readership is international in any given year, and because some of you have asked questions such as “what?” when hearing about some of the candidates; in fact, any of the candidates.  It is a fact that the largest advantage the President has in his re-election campaign is the quality and behavior of the Republican opposition.
            The first thing to mention is that there is a difference between the ownership of this base and the members of the base.  On the whole, the ownership is wealthy with attitudes much like those of Rupert Murdoch and the base is comprised of those duped into voting against their own self-interest.  We are concentrating on the base.
            Next, matters become much more clear if we simply accept the proposition that fact, verifiable fact, and scientific fact, are totally irrelevant in the campaign and the debates.  Political fact and truth are also irrelevant.  Assertion is all that counts with this base and the assertions must comport with the fantastic beliefs of this moronic group.
            So, for example, there is no evolution of any sort.  The universe is 6,000 years old and that is all there is to it.  Have you ever met anyone older that 6,000 years old?  No, and if you do, then we can talk.  The easiest way for us to explain this to you is simply to refer you to the movie, INHERIT THE WIND.  There are at least three versions of this.  Pay attention of the examination by the actor playing Darrow of the actor playing Bryant (opposing and prosecuting counsel).  It has something to do with the number assigned to a generation and then counting the number of begettings that went on thus producing generations.
            One may ask whether the candidates actually believe the nonsense they often espouse, and the answer is that it does not matter.  However, I did ask that question of some of our American readers and post at the end the “Hughman Perspective”.  As to foreign policy issues as related to some of the religious assertions, I post below the “Wright Perspective”.  This at least should serve to show that not all “Americans” are idiots.
            Finally, the fact that two concepts or principles, or assertions, are completely incompatible does not preclude the fact that they must be believed simultaneously.  This is an important corollary to the governing principle that fact is completely irrelevant – only assertion is needed or encouraged.
            Having said all this, we can offer a few observations on some of the candidates in question.
            Rick Perry seems to be the most popular amongst this group.  He was governor of Texas and proposed to secede from the Union, a proposal warmly received in Texas (and elsewhere, by the way), but not seriously considered since the days of Abraham Lincoln and the Confederacy and the Civil War.  He led a prayer and fasting ritual for an entire day in Texas to pray for rain as Texas was literally on fire.  The fasting was greatly enjoyed as many refreshments were served all the time.  Texas is still on fire, as best as we can determine.  During a question at a debate, it was stated by the questioner that about 250 people were executed in Texas last year.  He was unable to answer the rest of the question immediately as the audience broke out into wild applause in appreciation for his bloodlust.   Obviously, the entire crowd is “pro-life”.  (Remember the irrelevance of logical consistency.)
            Surprisingly, when compared to Obama, with the entire voting population (not just the Republican base), Sarah Palin does best, loosing by only 5 percentage points whereas Perry looses by as many as 16.  Enough has been said about her and the new book about her (has the word “rogue” in it), which no one has read but many have reviewed, mentioning things such as her having sex with a black basketball star in Michigan (one of the five or six colleges and universities she attended before obtaining her B.A.) to other absurd behaviors.  We have deliberately forgotten about them simply for the sake of mental stability (ours).  However, during this campaign, she has said absolutely nothing on any of the issues and has not (apparently) mentioned the President, and this has given her the support the survey showed.  In other words, she kept her mouth shut and thus made more sense than other candidates.
            Often finishing in second place with this crowd is Ron Paul, a Congressman from Texas.  He is never discussed.  A major reason for this is that he is logically consistant – government should do basically nothing.  Hence, he opposes all foreign aid, wars, occupations, and military bases.  The military should be used only for defense.  All victimless crimes should be abolished and thus drugs and prostitution would be legal.  This makes him popular with more intelligent, younger, voters as it also eliminates conscription, but the crowd is sharply divided when he makes the point.  However, the crowd is unanimous in approving his assertion that the government should not care about the welfare of its citizens by providing healthcare, retirement, and so on.  (Current recipients do retain their Social Security because “a Deal’s a Deal.”)   Since he is logically consistent, he will never be nominated.  Thus, he was widely booed when stating we should not use our military abroad and wildly cheered when he said that we should let sick people die.
            Mitt Romney is at a disadvantage because at one time he supported a woman’s right to choose and instituted a healthcare system as Governor of Massachusetts.   He is able to attack Perry for attacking Social Security as a “Ponzi Scheme.”  He also seems relatively sane, but then this simply means that he seems to be the least insane of the candidates.
            Michelle Bachman is interesting in her ability to alternate between a semblance of sanity and pure idiocy.  So, her husband runs a clinic to “cure” homosexuals through prayer and government aid.  She believes a woman should “submit” to her husband in accordance with the crowd’s understanding of the Bible, but when asked about it says that “submit” means “mutual respect”.  She was proud of the fact that she went to Law School (Oral Robert’s?) and worked for the IRS, but when questioned said that she was working against the enemy from within.
            There are others, of course, but these serve to illustrate the pack.  All that remains to be said is that the only entity that seems more disgusting than any candidate is the base itself.
             Now the other comments:
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
Sweet Jesus, Cheney is showing how his Heart Pump works AGAIN, on CNN. Once more and I’ll be able to build one out of popsicle sticks


Of course they are part charlatan as most any publicly announced
“Christian” is.  That’s probably where they get their first lessons in
duplicity- growing up and hearing  people avow one thing and practice
another. They see how easy it is and it becomes such a habit, it is
part of their nature. Espouse whatever is necessary to achieve the
real goals. Money and power. Their true creed is Greed, so deny global
warming; regulation is bad for business; don’t tax the rich- they
create jobs (ha ha).  Of course Greed has no pity on the lower level-
do away with Social Security and Medicare; They should be self-
reliant and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. No bootstraps? let
them eat Twinkies!
I heard on the news- the guy said Obama looks more and more like a one
term President, and that makes it hard for Romney to say choose him
because Perry is unelectable, but now it looks like any Repub can win.
I said that myself last year- that there will be a hell of a scramble
for the Repub nomination, because whoever gets it is the next
president. But if that’s the case, why stop at Perry? How about
Bachmann and Palin for a ticket? Set al kinds of records- first women
execs, first dingbat execs- first to watch the country sink below the
horizon maybe?
My friend then sent the following after apologizing for not taking into consideration the fact that I use a PC, not a MAC:
The survey of 1,714 U.S. adults, conducted by Gallup in fall 2010, was
funded by Baylor, the National Science Foundation and the John
Templeton Foundation. The margin of error is plus or minus 4
percentage points.
Gallup  questioned 1714 adults in fall 2010 . Named the Baylor
Religion Survey ( Baylor is in Wacko Texas ) they must have been chief
funder or perhaps the only party interested in the results. It seems
an awfully small sampling but it found 1 in 5 (20%) 342.8 people
surveyed were conservative believers in an anthropomorphic god ( big
“G” with them) who concerns himself with the daily workings of the
world ( just one of several worlds  he personally runs) and especially
with the way the economy is handled. These people also oppose
government regulation and champion the free market as a matter of
faith! They say the economy works because god wants it to work. Now if
the economy doesn’t work, does that mean god doesn’t want it to work?
This a question I would have wanted asked in the survey.  Is the
economy working right now? Well, some days it’s up and some days it’s
down. Maybe god is a Bipolar manic/depressive?? Or maybe he just
enjoys roller coaster rides. It makes little difference to him- he
doesn’t need the cash- he buys on credit. I am joking of course- he
doesn’t buy – he has everything already. These people say the
invisible hand of the free market is really god at work- according to
Paul Froese, co author of the Baylor Religion Survey. According to
him, most conservatives- 81% or 277.668 of people surveyed, believe
there is an ultimate truth in the world. I wish they’d synthesize that
truth into one logical sentence, but alas, you must ask god I guess.
However the vague answer is god is running the economy and don’t
bother him, Politicians now see a new economic idealism which prompts
them to say such things as; god blesses us; god helps us, god watches
us ( it sounds like a line from Prizzi’s Honor), to much applause as
these conservatives get the coded message. Good for them because I
don’t see any message there. And Government (big “G”’ for emphasis) is
a villain to be booed- or even ( shudder) the Devil to be despised!.
Government works against god who just wants everything to run without
interference. According to the survey  73%-  or 277.668 of these folks
say- “I know God has a plan for me.” I am suspicious of so many random
people phrasing a statement in the exact same wording. It sounds like
there was coaching behind the scenes. 49% – the survey says…. ( they
should put this on Family Feud) 49% say “the government in Washington
is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and
private businesses. Again so many using the exact same words is
suspicious, don’t you think? 79% say able-bodied people who are out of
work shouldn’t receive unemployment checks if they are passing up jobs
they can do ( like licking conservative asses clean after they take a

Now the good news for the rest of the world is this is a distinctly
American cultural finding and specific to the moment. It was different
in the past, it might be different in the future ( let’s hope so-
hey!?) and it’s different now in Western Europe, according to Froese .
The teabagger’s motto seems to be “ No taxation AND no
representation.” Or “Let god do it.”

And on Israel:
Dear Warren,

Forgive me in advance if you will for taking issue with some of the things you wrote in your
very good essay.   To my understanding, Hamas is not unwilling to recognize israel if Israel
will say what its eastern border is.  It’s hard to ‘recognize’ an un-bordered state.  It’s been crystal
clear for decades that the political regimes controlling Israel push tirelessly for more
land in the West Bank, and make life for Palestinians ( modern ‘Philistines’) practically unbearable.

I’m a Christian, and for that reason do not think Israel should be cut any more slack politically because
of its sacred Biblical name, any more than someone named ‘Jesus’ deserves special treatment legally.

We the United States are profoundly culpable for the current injustice we find between Israel and Palestine.
This situation would have long ago been solved justly and fairly if we had stopped kow-towing to Israel’s
demands and lobbying pressure.  Congressional fear of the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ is disgustingly obvious
to anyone with any discernment whatsoever.  Vetoing all and every UN resolution against Israel’s bad behavior has made us an international pariah ourselves in some sense. I am reticent to use the phrase ‘what would Jesus do’ but I doubt the kind of hypocrisy we have been dishing out for decades would meet with his approval.

Posted by The Editors at 1:43 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: