Yesterday

Time’s Karen Tumulty provides the total vote counts, nationwide, for Super Tuesday. (I’m not sure how these account for caucuses.) Tumulty is focused on the remarkably close race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but that’s not what I found most striking.

Here are those same numbers tossed into Word’s graph-maker:

Picture_2

Picture_1

So Clinton and Obama both received more than twice as many votes as John McCain did yesterday. The overnight spin-chat on MSNBC somehow neglected to mention that. They were more concerned with whether or not the closely contested Democratic race would divide that party, hurting the eventual candidate down the line against McCain and the supposedly united GOP in the general election.

Yet while the Republican outcomes yesterday were more lopsided, the rancor between the factions on that side of the aisle seems much more fierce. The GOP establishment — including talk radio moguls Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson — really dislikes McCain. Wall Street, Club for Growth type Republicans hate Huckabee. The sense I’ve gotten from the Democratic side is that while voters may have real preferences for either Clinton or Obama, there wouldn’t be a lot of wailing or gnashing of teeth if the other one wound up winning the nomination.

Over at Hullabaloo, dday highlights data from a CNN exit poll that indicates my impression is mostly accurate:

Magickareem

There’s no doubt Democrats are torn between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But the early exit polls show they are not bitterly divided: 72 percent of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the party’s nomination, while 71 percent say the same about Obama.

I’d like to see the same response to the Republican version of that question. What percentage of Republican voters would be satisfied with McCain? Or Huckabee? Or Romney? I’d guess that not only would the percentage be lower, but I’d guess the dissatisfaction in that race would be far more vigorous and vehement.

For myself, I’d be more than satisfied with either Obama or Clinton as my party’s nominee. I understand that Magic Johnson is supporting Hillary Clinton. Kareem Abdul Jabaar, meanwhile, is supporting Barack Obama.

That’s the choice: Magic or Kareem.

It’s an understandably tough call, but I’m not complaining about the options.

  • Tonio

    The notion that I am from the south and voted Republican a few times (I’m really more of a swing voter overall) means that I’m some racist who wants to oppress minorities just PISSES ME OFF to no end.
    No one here is saying that. Pointing out the history of Southern politics does NOT equate to claiming that all Southern Republicans are racists.

  • Steve

    The interesting thing about that is the numbers I saw (at about 9:30 CST on Sooper Toosday) indicated that Huck and Rom both had, like 27% of the self-described Evangelical vote while McCain had 39%. I don’t think McCain has even bothered to try to pander to a religious base. So the also-rans aren’t even winning at that game.
    Actually, McCain started seriously pandering to evangelicals 2 or 3 years ago. Spoke at Bob Jones University, made peace with Jerry Falwell after calling him names in 2000. See here:
    McCain Woos the Right, Makes Peace With Falwell
    In fact, I think he’d be a much more formidable candidate if he hadn’t done this…because he had the aura of the independent minded, non-panderer…and was appealing to independents. Plus, his timing was terrible because shortly after starting to do this, the backlash against conservatives began. Since he started the pandering, his national approval ratings went way down because it went against the core of his appeal. He was almost dead in the water a few months back…and I think its just because everyone on the Republican side was so pitiful that he has now risen to the top.
    That being said, the Clinton vs. McCain match-up concerns me most because Republicans really hate Clinton, and McCain still appeals somewhat to independents. But I think independents would definitely break more for Obama than McCain.

  • http://hittingbedrock.blogspot.com Toby

    Tonio: I’m an Ivins fan, but I don’t remember her saying that. Can you provide a link? While I also object in principle to Clinton’s pandering, I see it relatively minor compared with Romney’s more despicable pandering to the religious right.
    Sure, if it comes to the lesser of two pandering evils, I’d prefer Clinton. Still, it would be nice to have a Democratic nominee who understands that “reaching across the aisle” ought to involve more than throwing the wingnuts the occasional hysterical bone.
    Also: Link.

  • Cowboy Diva

    No Jesu, he swings.

  • http://accidental-historian.blogspot.com/ Geds

    Actually, McCain started seriously pandering to evangelicals 2 or 3 years ago.
    You’re right. I totally forgot about that.
    Didn’t Jon Stewart rip him a new one after he spoke at Bob Jones U.?

  • Steve

    Interesting thought: I’ve also had the thought “I hope the worst Republican candidate gets nominated so it is a cake walk.” BUT, what if Huckabee or Romney were nominated, and then some scandal rocked Clinton or Obama…think Gary Hart. I’d rather have McCain winning in that case.

  • hapax

    Huck and Rom both had, like 27% of the self-described Evangelical vote while McCain had 39%. I don’t think McCain has even bothered to try to pander to a religious base.
    McCain’s pandering to evangelicals cut him no ice whatsoever. He has a horrifically tin ear for the talk. What DID (and does) make the difference is the enormous overlap between “self-described evangelicals” and military families. They respect McCain not only for his service, but for his consistent support of the rank and file of the Armed Forces (except, of course, his enthusiasm for sending them out to die in pointless trumped up conflicts).
    But I don’t give a flying fantod on WHICH R or D is nominated. When it comes to pulling a lever in November, the only thing that matters to me are the upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court. One more inJustice like Scalito, and I’ll be moving to Edinburgh to check out Jesu’s pizza recipes…

  • damnedyankee

    I think that Rush, et al, are getting their snits out of the way early on, depending on the short memories of their fans (which have served them well, lo these many years) when an Obama/Clinton (pick one) presidency becomes a looming reality and they toe the line behind McCain.
    A saying I’ve been hearing a lot lately: “Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.”
    On the other hand, we could actually be looking at the fall of the House That Reagan Built, in which case I can only say “pass the popcorn!”

  • Tonio

    enormous overlap between “self-described evangelicals” and military families.
    Why is there such an overlap? The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has chronicled some terrifying stories through the services of harrassment of non-Christian members.

  • http://xanga.com/ihavenothingprofoundtosay Robb

    “Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.”
    Not this time – Dems are [romance novel] torn between the love they’ve known for so long, aching to be consumated, and the new passionate fire of hope that has swept them off their feet like they haven’t known since [/romance novel] Kennedy or thereabouts.
    Repubz, meanwhile, are going to be only grudingly happy with McCain, only because has has more appeal to independents and could actually win a general election. A McCain-Huckabee ticket would unite the party as much as it could possibly be united, especially against Hillary. But falling in line won’t happen this time without lots of subtle jabs at McCain.
    BTW – I am caucussing this saturday (in WA) for Obama because I do NOT want Hillary to be the nominee, much less president. Obama has a much better chance of pulling voters from the right & middle, and has a much better attitude towards bi-partisan cooperation.
    RE: Mitt. . . that is only one Guantanamo Bay‘s worth of relief.

  • http://joykins1.livejournal.com Joy

    Why is there such an overlap? The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has chronicled some terrifying stories through the services of harrassment of non-Christian members.
    The harrassment exists because the non-Christian servicemembers are minorities. Something like 85% of religious servicemembers are Christians of some variety, and they tend to be predominantly conservative.

  • http://hittingbedrock.blogspot.com Toby

    Geds: Didn’t Jon Stewart rip him a new one after he spoke at Bob Jones U.?
    It was Liberty U. And yup.
    I think Stewart was genuinely disillusioned by the move, but it’s pretty clear that he still has a bit of an inter-partisan man-crush on McCain. (Which is unfortunate. I think that the good-guy “maverick” image that McCain has managed to acquire among non-Republicans is mostly a sham.)

  • Tonio

    Something like 85% of religious servicemembers are Christians of some variety, and they tend to be predominantly conservative.
    Why do you think that is the case? Is there something about the military that attracts Christians, particularly conservative ones? Is there something about conservative Christianity that attracts service members? Or is there something about both areas that attracts people of a certain personality?

  • Craig

    For myself, I’d be more than satisfied with either Obama or Clinton as my party’s nominee.
    I suspect a lot of people would be satisfied with a swarm of angry bees over a Huckster ticket (possible campaign slogan: “Stingers, not stonings!”).
    At least, I hope it’s a lot.

  • Craig

    Is there something about the military that attracts Christians, particularly conservative ones? Is there something about conservative Christianity that attracts service members?
    This is largely guesswork, mind, but I suspect it goes something like:
    1. Republicans claim to be (more) pro-military
    plus
    2. Republicans claim to be religion-friendly
    plus
    3. Conservative Christians are more likely to believe points one and two
    plus
    4. Conservative Christianity is swamped with military jargon (spiritual warfare, etc.)
    equals
    5. Conservative Christians join the military in droves

  • Tonio

    possible campaign slogan: “Stingers, not stonings!”
    “Now look, no one is to sting anyone until I blow this whistle. EVEN, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they DO say Jehovah!” (repeated stings by bees)

  • damnedyankee

    The harrassment exists because the non-Christian servicemembers are minorities. Something like 85% of religious servicemembers are Christians of some variety, and they tend to be predominantly conservative.

    From what I’ve read, the majority of complaints of religious harassment in the military come from self-identified Christians, who are harassed because they’re not the right kind of Christian, not because they’re minorities.

  • hapax

    Is there something about the military that attracts Christians, particularly conservative ones?
    Some of Craig’s reasoning holds, but I believe it’s simpler than that. Basically, the principal demographic for military recruits — economically distressed, with lower levels of education, and a generally authoritian culture — is also the principal demographic for conservative Christianity.

  • Tonio

    Conservative Christianity is swamped with military jargon (spiritual warfare, etc.)
    Am I the only one who is unsettled by this, even though most of them probably use the jargon allegorically? With the scandal at the Air Force Academy, there were many indications that the harassment of cadets was organized and directed. The media coverage didn’t outline the specific beliefs of the harassers, but one of my concerns was if any of them were PMDers. Imagine an officer in charge of an ICBM whose PMD beliefs led him to see the end of the world as a good thing.

  • Tonio

    harassed because they’re not the right kind of Christian, not because they’re minorities.
    Thanks for reminding me of that. I assumed Joy was referring not to ethnic minorities but the fact that non-Christians in the military would constitute a numerical minority. What types of “wrong” Christians were targeted?

  • hapax

    but one of my concerns was if any of them were PMDers.
    Abso-tooti-lutely.
    Imagine an officer in charge of an ICBM whose PMD beliefs led him to see the end of the world as a good thing.
    I don’t have to imagine. My cousin-in law IS one (well, not in charge of an ICBM, but who commands many airplanes stuffed with big shiny things that go boom).
    Of course, I have another cousin who works security for a civilian nuclear plant who is also a manic-depressive nihilist.
    Welcome to my nightmares.

  • Caravelle

    In fairness to Eric B’s first point: He’s right. By the second presidential campaign (and perhaps earlier), Bush was often referred to as “W.” Neither first nor last name… middle initial.
    By who ? When I started thinking about the Hillary/Clinton question (especially given the exact same thing was happening in France. I’ll give them that “Ségo vs Sarko” was euphonic though) I also noted that Bush Jr got called Dubya or W… but he was mostly called that by his enemies wasn’t he ? I don’t think it ever happened in supposedly serious media outlets. Like it did on a graph on MSNBC’s Countown some time ago, where everybody was referred to by their last name except guess who. At least Olbermann pointed it out.
    Why do you think that is the case? Is there something about the military that attracts Christians, particularly conservative ones? Is there something about conservative Christianity that attracts service members? Or is there something about both areas that attracts people of a certain personality?
    Offhand, I’d say both groups attract or cause “right-wing authoritarian” personalities (the ‘right-wing’ not being a political term). Maybe there’s a socio-economic background issue as well ?
    That said, how disproportionate is 85% of Christians ? Don’t most Americans self-describe as Christian anyway ?

  • bulbul

    Of course, I have another cousin who works security for a civilian nuclear plant who is also a manic-depressive nihilist.
    Welcome to my nightmares.

    Actually, that one with your cousin sounds like an idea for a sitcom script I wrote once. Only my security guy was just a depressive nihilist.

  • Tonio

    That said, how disproportionate is 85% of Christians ? Don’t most Americans self-describe as Christian anyway ?
    The issue is how many Christians in the military subscribe to authoritarian and anti-humanist versions of that religion. This would include, but not be limited to, PMD, Dominionism, and Biblical literalism.

  • hapax

    Bush Jr got called Dubya or W… but he was mostly called that by his enemies wasn’t he ?
    Umm. No. There are still a depressing number of pick-em-ups round these parts with W ’04 bumper stickers.

  • Tonio

    Bush Jr got called Dubya or W… but he was mostly called that by his enemies wasn’t he ?
    The aforementioned Ivins favored the nickname Shrub.

  • http://chapter12.wordpress.com Eric B.

    Well, Bush is called ‘W’ by supporters and “Dubya’ by enemies. And like I said, ‘Hillary’ is what’s prominent on her signs. So like I said, I don’t really worry about it anymore, though I am more in the habit of reffering to her as ‘Clinton.’
    As for the Red State/Confederacy thing, Many of us in ‘conservative Christianity’ repeatedy call out those who support racism, and the pendulum is swinging that way against homophobia too (though we still have a long way to go). But, you know as well as I do that not all, or even a majority of Republicans are racist, even if most racists are Republican. It’s not a fair representation. It’s simply a way to dismiss the other side, and ultimately does more to create more barriers that hurt us all in the long run.

  • Caravelle

    Bush Jr got called Dubya or W… but he was mostly called that by his enemies wasn’t he ?
    Umm. No. There are still a depressing number of pick-em-ups round these parts with W ’04 bumper stickers.

    Oh. Okay then ^^ (not that I think campaign posters, stickers and informal settings in general the issue here, but point taken about the W)

  • http://jesurgislac.greatestjournal.com Jesurgislac

    Eric: Many of us in ‘conservative Christianity’ repeatedy call out those who support racism
    Odd, I didn’t see any such denunciations of (for example) Jeb Bush’s systematically stripping black voters in Florida of the right to vote in 2000.
    , and the pendulum is swinging that way against homophobia too
    Nor of George W. Bush for using a homophobic amendment to the US Constitution as an electoral campaign sweetener in 2004 and 2006.
    But, you know as well as I do that not all, or even a majority of Republicans are racist
    Straw man!
    It’s not a fair representation. It’s simply a way to dismiss the other side, and ultimately does more to create more barriers that hurt us all in the long run.
    Fair point. So, as you are the first and only one in this thread bringing up the idea that a “majority of Republicans are racist”, and you are doing so only to deny it in advance of anyone asserting it, why are you doing so, when you’ve just asserted that doing so actually creates a barrier?

  • bulbul

    It’s simply a way to dismiss the other side, and ultimately does more to create more barriers that hurt us all in the long run.
    Pot, meet kettle:
    - Democrats are nothing but a bunch of East-coast liberal sissies who are out of touch with real America
    - Democrats approve of murder of babies
    - Democrats legislate immorality which destroys our families
    - Democrats are traitors (for criticizing our President)
    and my favorite
    - Democrats want to legislate defeat in Iraq and SURRENDER TO AL-QUEDA!
    Now tell me, which one is closer to the truth: “Republicans are racists and homophobes” OR any of the above statements about Democrats?

  • http://chapter12.wordpress.com Eric B.

    Well, perhaps you are right. Or maybe perhaps that it’s just a defensive reaction from the barrage of columns since the 2004 election makeing the case that all of us in Souther “Red State” were a bunch of racist hillbillies who wish the South was still like it was in 1855. So, if that wasn’t the intent of the person who posted the link reconnecting the red states with the confederacy, then maybe I am just a dumb hillbilly who can’t comprehend complex political discussions.
    As to the race issue, I’ve never lived in Florida, so I can’t speak to that issue. But, during my time in Cicninnati, I have spoken about a lot of the racial tensions in that city and called for reconcilliation. And I voted against Kentucky’s marraige amendment in 2004, and tried to get as many people as I could to do the same. Last night I preached a very passionate sermon against intolerance. And I realize that I’m just one guy, so surely I’m not representative of all of the hillbillies. But, I can tell you, I work with college students, and overwhelmingly they identify as conservative and republican (the students I work with, not students in general) and they are getting to the point where they do not accept the politics of intolerance.

  • http://chapter12.wordpress.com Eric B.

    bullbul–that’s my point. None of those lables are acceptable. I refuse to use those lables, and I get really ticked off when they get used on me.

  • mmack

    Imagine an officer in charge of an ICBM whose PMD beliefs led him to see the end of the world as a good thing.
    Stanley Kubrick beat you to it. Just replace “Communist” with “Islamic”, and ignore the fact Gen. Ripper commanded B-52′s and not ICBM’s:
    General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don’t think I do, sir, no.
    General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

  • bulbul

    Eric B.,
    I understand that. And reading what you wrote, I cannot help but wonder – why exactly do you identify as a conservative and/or a Republican?

  • http://chapter12.wordpress.com Eric B.

    Well, really, It’s probablly more accurate to identify myself as a right leaning moderate, but since I lived in Kentucky in 2004 and voted for Bush (too long to explain that one here), thus those red state maps get me all worked up. I admit, in a lot of ways I don’t consider myself a very good Republican (but I wouldn’t make a good Democrat either). Generally speaking though, my “conservatism” stems from the fact that I don’t think that throwing government money at all of our problems is a great solution to most of them. Most of that comes from my time working the the beauarcracy and just how inefficent and impersonal it is. And I’m pro-life, but not to the point that I vote for a pro-lifer regardless of his or her other qualities (and I understand the complexity of the pro-choice position, and refuse to get involved in the rhetoric wars).
    On the other hand, I’m soft on immigration, generally against the death penalty. I’ve always been torn on Iraq, though I gradually am going from leaning in favor of it to leaning in opposition of it.
    What really bothers me, and has bothered me since the 2000 election, however, is how venomous both parties have been towards each other. I think most of it started with Florida 2000, but I think this polarization has been harmful on issues such as health care, Iraq, and all of the other problems. There is so much of this divisive rhetoric that both sides have gotten to the point that they are completly dismissive of what the other side has to say. As such, the only way to accomplish anything is to “go it alone” and its been a huge problem. And all of these comments about the red state/blue state maps or that opposing the war makes you a traitor is just harmful, not just to the opposition party but to the country as a whole. Imagine being a “red stater” in 2004 and seeing the “United States of Canada” and “Jesusland” map, where some creative genius took the blue states and make them part of Canada and made the red states into Jesusland. And we read all of this stuff about how dumb and ignorant we were to vote for Bush. And then you wonder why we call you elitists (and note, I’m using we and you in a very broad sense, so if you aren’t specifically in one of those categories, just keep in mind I’m not really trying to accuse anyone of anything here).
    So, to show for all of that, we have a gridlocked government. Yet we wonder why, in a time like this, with intense problems facing our country, nothing is getting done. I think it is due to this intense polarization we have. It’s not just Bush’s fault (but sure, he gets some of the blame). Until all of this dismissiveness of people with opposing political viewpoints stops, we aren’t going anywhere.
    Which is why I am excited about the prospect of a McCain/Obama race. I think it will get dirty at times, but I think both of them could rise above all of this. Not that they won’t have critics. Clinton I think would be a pretty good president, but I fear some of the polarization won’t heal as quickly if she ends up with the nomination.

  • bulbul

    I lived in Kentucky in 2004 and voted for Bush (too long to explain that one here)
    By all means, take all the time and space you need. And I am not saying this in the “Thursday Flamewar” spirit.
    Generally speaking though, my “conservatism” stems from the fact that I don’t think that throwing government money at all of our problems is a great solution to most of them.
    Great, because not even the pinko-liberal-bleeding-heart-commie that I am believes that.
    I’ve always been torn on Iraq, though I gradually am going from leaning in favor of it to leaning in opposition of it.
    Forgive me, but that doesn’t sound like you were torn. Indeed, you seem to be saying that you were and perhaps still are in favor of it.
    What really bothers me, and has bothered me since the 2000 election, however, is how venomous both parties have been towards each other.
    Actually, it seems to me that what bothers you most is that you’re being painted (red) with a very broad brush and so you end up the same color as people you don’t want to be associated with.

  • Jim

    Eric–
    I agree that generalizations are pretty bad, but you have to realize that you are running into some history here. The Republicans ran campaigns that were centered on racism in 1964 and 1968 that they called the Southern Strategy. This was aimed at taking southern whites away from the Democratic Party. They’ve never actually apologized for this and it still rankles many. In addition the Republicans have appealed to racism since then. Examples include Reagan speaking at the Neshoba County fair, Willie Horton and John McCain’s black baby.
    You’ve chosen to associate yourself with this group, for whatever reason, so you probably will have to emphasize to people that you’re not like those Republicans.

  • Cowboy Diva

    Eric B.
    One of my favorite Republicans is a former coworker of mine; he had been President of College Republicans at Temple University where his group’s office was right next door to that of gay/lesbian association. Within a week of starting the semester he had scheduled a joint party that was apparently greatly appreciated by all.
    He has often said that he did not leave the GOP, it left him, when fundies showed up in the 80s in his district (he lived somewhere in Montgomery County PA) wreaking havoc with the school boards and requiring litmus tests for PCOs.
    We are all very aware of the current platform of the Republican Party and we are horrified by what has been done in the name of conservatism and patriotism under the current administration and previous do-nothing congress.
    You will find here people working for social justice and liberty for as many as possible, without regard to how they may be KILLED BY TERRORISTS in the process.
    You will pardon our mocking, as it comes out of disgust and disdain for how the Republican Party presents itself and its policies.

  • Craig

    Diva’s right, Eric. If you have to constantly fight tooth and nail to not be associated with a stereotype, you should probably check to see if the stereotype is accurate. You sound like a typical small (or at least streamlined) government, fiscal responsibility type, and many in the GOP have clearly abandoned such concepts.

  • Reynard

    From the CNN article: “Let’s be clear — conservatives don’t like McCain. But with conservatives one seat away from having a majority on the Supreme Court and the next president having the power to name up to three justices, do you actually think the folks who’ve fought two generations to re-take the Court actually want to see three Clinton jurists?”
    I’m not sure that they care about whether they get a Conservative majority on the SCOTUS — or even that there *IS* a SCOTUS. My impression is that they’ve become like a dying, rabid dog that has; in it’s delirium; savaged and is eating it’s own entrails. They’ve had to invest themselves in Dubya’s topsy-turvy ideological cognitive dissonance for the past eight years while everything that Feckless Leader has touched (The War in Iraq, the “War on Terr’r”, the Economy, etc.) has turned to shit. They simply can’t *afford* to change ideological course and embrace some of the more “sensible” (for a Republican, at least) measures that McCain has proposed. They’d rather curse the darkness than take a chance of lighting a candle and being forced to see just what a gawdawful mess their man Bush has made of things.

  • Drak Pope

    They simply can’t *afford* to change ideological course and embrace some of the more “sensible” (for a Republican, at least) measures that McCain has proposed.
    Yeah they can. The GOP might be ridiculously conservative, but they’re not exactly what you’d call rigid. Very few parties in 2-party systems can afford to be for very long; whenever that happens, the party that learns to pander to the electorate and the special interests wins and the rigid, unbending party ends up being marginalized and ignored. You overestimate the integrity of Republicans by saying that they won’t be be able to sidle up to McCain.

  • rizzo

    Another reason for the polarization you speak of, Eric, is that it was engineered. The Rovian political machine didn’t work by making friends in 2000 or 2004, it worked by targeting enemies. I know a number of people who want nothing to do with Christians and are pro choice, yet voted for Bush both years because of misrepresentation of Democratic candidates by either the official Bush campaign or those operating with at least a wink and a nod from it. Compare this with, say, the ’92 or ’96 elections. I doubt anyone would have tolerated a group trying to discredit either Bush I or Dole’s experiences under fire.
    Unfortunately, while this is obviously an effective campaign strategy, it tends to limit the effectiveness of the actual government.

  • Reynard

    Conservative Christianity is swamped with military jargon (spiritual warfare, etc.)
    “Am I the only one who is unsettled by this, even though most of them probably use the jargon allegorically? With the scandal at the Air Force Academy, there were many indications that the harassment of cadets was organized and directed. The media coverage didn’t outline the specific beliefs of the harassers, but one of my concerns was if any of them were PMDers. Imagine an officer in charge of an ICBM whose PMD beliefs led him to see the end of the world as a good thing.”
    Actually, *one* PMD-indoctrinated officer wouldn’t be a problem since it takes *several* turned keys to launch those ICBMs. The worry would be if *SEVERAL* PMDers of the same stripe had managed to infiltrate their way into the chain-of-command both from top to bottom and in the relevant command silos.

  • hapax

    Actually, *one* PMD-indoctrinated officer wouldn’t be a problem since it takes *several* turned keys to launch those ICBMs.
    Interestingly enough, I was just talking today with a friend whose brother holds one of those keys. No, a single loon couldn’t *launch* an ICBM; but one stoned enlisted man goofing around with the oxidising component of the fuel can kill six men horribly. And has.

  • Tonio

    So, if that wasn’t the intent of the person who posted the link reconnecting the red states with the confederacy, then maybe I am just a dumb hillbilly who can’t comprehend complex political discussions.
    My intent was to say that as much as I love America, I cannot deny that there is something very vile and rotten at the heart of our culture, and it affects all of us to some degree. I don’t mean just racism in the North or South, I mean an almost psychotic terror of modernity. I read articles like and I worry about pogroms against humanists and secularists. Why are these people fighting so hard against evolution? What are they afraid of? Can’t they just deal with their fears on their own, instead of promoting ignorance about even basic science? Eric, you sound like a classic meat-and-potatoes small-government conservative who is liberal-to-moderate on social issues. I would much rather have Republicans like you than Huckabee or Dobson.

  • Tonio

    Let’s try it again…
    So, if that wasn’t the intent of the person who posted the link reconnecting the red states with the confederacy, then maybe I am just a dumb hillbilly who can’t comprehend complex political discussions.
    My intent was to say that as much as I love America, I cannot deny that there is something very vile and rotten at the heart of our culture, and it affects all of us to some degree. I don’t mean just racism in the North or South, I mean an almost psychotic terror of modernity. I read articles like this and I worry about pogroms against humanists and secularists. Why are these people fighting so hard against evolution? What are they afraid of? Can’t they just deal with their fears on their own, instead of promoting ignorance about even basic science? Eric, you sound like a classic meat-and-potatoes small-government conservative who is liberal-to-moderate on social issues. I would much rather have Republicans like you than Huckabee or Dobson.

  • Josh

    Tonio: to my knowledge there hasn’t been a four-way race for the White House in the past century.
    1948?

  • Tommy Times

    1. Obama could win in the South against McCain.
    2. The nice thing about McCain is that he has already proven he can self destruct. I don’t know if you will see ‘Bomb Iran’ ads, but you will probably see some use made of his April Fool’s Day stroll through a Baghdad market, which he called proof that you could indeed “walk freely” in some areas of Baghdad.
    3. Swift Boat, anyone? Apparent McCain told 60 minutes in 1997 that “I am a war criminal.”

  • Dash

    Eric: What really bothers me, and has bothered me since the 2000 election, however, is how venomous both parties have been towards each other. I think most of it started with Florida 2000, . . .
    Actually, you might consider the rise of Rush Limbaugh and right-wing radio well before the 2000 election–late 1980′s, in fact. There was for a long time nothing on the left (or even moderate center) that was equivalently venomous. (“Feminazi” is a lot worse than “United States of Jesus.”) That, of course, was made possible by the withdrawal of the Fairness Doctrine (late 1980′s).
    Eric: So, to show for all of that, we have a gridlocked government.
    No we don’t. Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House from 2000 through 2006. If they didn’t get stuff done, it has nothing to do with the Democrats stopping them–the Dems couldn’t. Even after the November 2006 elections, Bush has gotten most of what he wanted from the Democratic Congress–in fact, many Democrats are disgusted with what they regard as weak leadership from Pelosi and Reid. (Google “spineless” and “Democrat”–it’s more often used on the left than the right.)

  • Dash

    Does that mean we have to stop calling Romney “Willard”?
    Can we still call him “Mittens”?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X