Republicans Need Morons

Let’s say you have a major political party in a large, prosperous country. And let’s say that this party rode to power on a wave of populist pandering to people who are, to put it nicely, stupid bigots. And let’s say that this party is starting to realize what a mistake this was (but only after seeing how changing demographics deprived this party of its actual goal, which is making rich people richer). So some people in this party have started openly discussing the obvious fact that pandering to stupid bigots is starting to cost them elections as minority and women voters gain more traction. How do you expect the stupid bigots to respond?

By insisting it’s all about themselves, of course! Stupid bigots aren’t really capable of thinking about anything but themselves (that’s why they’re stupid bigots), so it should come as no surprise that they think the Republican Party owes everything to them and the fact that the world isn’t falling in line with their beliefs is proof that they’re being persecuted. Case in Point: David Limbaugh, brother of the odious Rush Limbaugh, proclaiming in the WingNutDaily that The Republican Party needs stupid bigots.

One of the largest elephants in the GOP’s post-election room is the fate of Christian and other social conservatives. Party honchos can’t just wish this problem away – or, maybe they can.

Make up your mind, asshole. Can they or can’t they?

And I was pretty sure that the largest elephant in any GOP room was your brother.

There has been increasing hostility toward Christian involvement in politics, and the animus hasn’t been solely from the left.

Boo hoo hoo! They’re not letting Christians get involved in politics! We’re being persecuted!

Except for the fact that pretty much every politician in America is Christian. And has been for quite some time. And the Christian religion gets injected into pretty much every fucking debate this country has on any issue. It seems like this country can’t decide whether or not to fix a pothole without first asking what Jesus wants (and then learning that Jesus apparently speaks through crazy dumb people).

To be sure, Democrats have taken the lead, demonizing conservative Christians as science-challenged scolds who don’t care about women’s “reproductive rights,”

I put “reproductive rights” in scare quotes because I don’t believe such a thing even exists. How dare the left demonize me by saying I don’t care about them!

No, David. We’re not demonizing you by calling you exactly what you are. You know dick about science, you moralize to everyone, and you’re misogynistic pricks who want to interfere with what a woman does with her own body. That’s not demonizing. That’s just stating the facts. “Science-challenged scolds who don’t care about women’s reproductive rights” is an apt description of the typical religious right wing nut.

but there is plenty of antipathy from certain elements within the Republican Party, as well.

Many establishment and some libertarian Republicans have long looked upon Christian conservatives with mild, condescending contempt. Party leaders from Barry Goldwater to Alan Simpson have openly derided Christians and lamented their negative influence on the party and on the overall political climate.

They derided Christians? I doubt that. More likely, they derided the people who think “Christian” means making every election about what people do with their genitals. Did it ever occur to you that many of these people are Christian themselves, and maybe they don’t take too kindly to you reserving the term solely to people who think cares more about buttsex than poverty? No, of course not. That would require actually considering someone else’s point of view.

Even Ronald Reagan’s warm embrace of faith-based conservatives didn’t diminish the establishment’s disdain for them, which forcibly reared its head over the Todd Akin and Rick Mourdock kerfuffles. So swift and dramatic was their descent on Akin following his “forcible rape” embarrassment that one could almost infer they were lying in wait for just such an excuse to marginalize outspoken Christian conservatives.

The term Akin used was “legitimate rape”. But it’s telling that you see such a comment as a sign that someone is a “Christian”. Am I to understand that the point of your op-ed is to convince me that marginalizing social conservatives is a bad thing? ‘Cause that’s not at all what I’m getting from this.

Don’t get me wrong; I had serious doubts about Akin’s electability after the comments, too, but the establishment’s outrage wasn’t limited to Akin (or Mourdock) or even to his rape comment. There was palpable disgust from certain quarters on the right over what they perceived as the lunacy of making social issues a part of the equation at all.

This is what I love about David Limbaugh. He seems to know exactly why people view the religious right as a bunch of babbling, underpants-on-head numbskulls. They’re science-challenged scolds who hate women and spout a bunch of lunacy. And Limbaugh’s response is, “Why is that so bad?” Love it.

If my analysis is incorrect, then why do we hear so much conflation of the Akin and Mourdock incidents with the question of the viability of social conservatism in general? If the outrage over these two was simply limited to their comments, then why are they increasingly cited as Exhibits A and B in the case for purging social conservatism from the Republican Party?

Your analysis isn’t incorrect. You’re totally right that many Republicans are getting sick of the religious right’s schtick. What I find so amusing is your inability to grasp why that might be. Wouldn’t it be, if not refreshing, at least entertaining if more people were like this? I’d love to see an interview with the members of Nickleback where they said, “For some reason, the fact that our music consists of painfully generic, derivative rock melodies combined with shallow, mind-numbingly stupid lyrics sung in the most insincerely maudlin voice any human can muster is causing people to say we suck. I just don’t get it!”

Imagine if terrorists responded to public outcry with something like, “I just don’t get why people hate being mauled by pipe bombs so much.” Or if con artists started saying, “I’m starting to get the feeling that people don’t like it when I steal their money. Am I wrong?” Yes, the world would still be full of assholes and morons in such a case. But at least the assholes would realize why they’re asshole, though still be utterly stupefied by the fact that this makes people think they’re assholes.

The GOP’s distaste for social conservatives this election cycle wasn’t confined to the Akin affair. If you’ll recall, Rick Santorum was the object of much scorn for his insistence on placing social issues front and center in his campaign. Some of the criticism was based on Santorum’s perceived demeanor and sanctimony, but no small amount of it would have occurred even if Santorum had been cheerfully optimistic in his approach to these issues.

What exactly is the “cheerfully optimistic” way to tell a woman she has to keep a pregnancy that resulted from rape? Wouldn’t that be Mourdock’s “God loves rape” approach? ‘Cause that doesn’t seem to work very well. Is there a “cheerfully optimistic” way to tell a gay man he can’t visit his dying partner in the hospital because the government won’t let them get married?

In fairness, we are in extraordinary times, and it’s understandable that even some Reagan conservatives (those who subscribe to his three-legged stool of economic, foreign policy and social conservatism)

Let me go on record as saying that I am totally on board with calling the current conservative platform “stool”.

became impatient with attempts to place social issues at the forefront. They were convinced that President Obama’s fiscal and economic nightmares alone would ensure a Republican victory and that there was no need to make controversial social issues a drag on the ticket.

What nightmares? Yeah, Obama’s far from perfect, but he still hasn’t managed to tank the economy the way the last couple Republicans have.

But that excuse will not mollify many social conservatives, who believe not only that social issues are the most important matters facing the nation today, but that at the root of our economic problems is an underlying disintegration of the nation’s moral fabric.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that could mollify social conservatives. They practically breathe and eat outrage. If they weren’t offended by something, they wouldn’t know what to do. Their minds are constantly in Gibbering Rage Mode, which is why thoughts like “Fags cause recessions” pass through their minds without triggering a That’s Really Stupid alarm.

My purpose here, though, is not to debate the merits of the competing positions, but to point out that this growing intolerance for social issues by some in the GOP could result in a major schism, even a splintering of the party.

People keep saying this, and yet it never happens. It’s almost as if the base that social conservatism appeals to is comprised largely of a bunch of ignorant sheep with short memories.

I am receiving emails and reading articles from Christian conservatives advocating a doubling down on social issues, some even suggesting that Christians redirect their focus away from politics and toward evangelism.

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: Please, right wing nuts, shift your focus away from politics. That’s totally the best way for you to counteract left wing heathens like me. It’ll totally work. Do it, do it, do it, do it!

Social issues are like blood in the water to Democrats and their liberal media accomplices, witnessed by their effort to ensnare GOP rising star Marco Rubio in a scandal over the age of the Earth. Even Rubio’s tempered response was uniformly maligned as evidence of his science-illiteracy and superstition. The right’s failure to come to his defense guarantees further and stronger attacks.

Okay, a few things here.

  1. The age of the Earth is not a social issue.
  2. Anyone who thinks it is is a dumbfuck.
  3. Rubio clearly thinks it is.
  4. He’s a dumbfuck.
  5. That’s why few Republicans came to his defense.

Perhaps one of the most insidious notions that circulates on the far right is this idea that facts about nature are matters of “personal belief”. It doesn’t take too much reflection to see why this would be a problem (but it’s still more reflection than David Limbaugh could ever muster). The fact that Rubio felt the need to give a “tempered” response (“tempered” here means “non-committal enough that the rubes won’t get upset”) just shows how bad this problem has gotten for the Republicans. The portion of their base who thinks they get to invent their own scientific facts is so large that their leading politicians are afraid to acknowledge that facts exist at all, and rather just offer some mushy nonsense about “mysteries” in answer to a question about a topic that is by no means mysterious.

The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. This has been established by numerous independent dating methods that all converge on the same answer. There is no other scientifically literate answer to such a question. If you don’t think the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, you don’t know shit about science. It’s that simple. But it’s even worse than that. In addition to being ignorant, you are also rejecting the expertise of people who, you know, actually do all the hard work that makes science happen. As much as Republicans love extolling the virtues of hard work and enterprise, they seem to forget those principles whenever someone applies those virtues and reaches a conclusion they don’t like.

It is no small irony that those urging a remake of the GOP to bring it in line with changing demographics could unwittingly alienate Hispanics and other minority recruits who might be receptive to social conservatism.

I’m sure Hispanics will fall right in line with all those social conservatives who want to make English the official language, ban Hispanic Studies classes, demand immigrants show their papers to any cop who asks for them, and claim that Mexican immigrants are stealing all our jobs. Social conservatives, you sure got a lot to offer those Hispanics! Keep fuckin’ that chicken, y’all!

It is also ironic and a testament to the wholesale ineffectiveness of the Republican Party that it is cowering from potentially winnable social issues: abortion, same-sex marriage, Obama’s assault on religious liberty and his phony war on women.

Well, those issues are “potentially winnable” in the same sense that Karl Rove thought Ohio was potentially winnable. But let’s go through them one by one.

Abortion. The public has spoken. Most Americans think it should be legal. But that’s not the end of the story. Our Founders spoke of the “tyranny of the majority” in the Federalist Papers. This is the fear that as long as something is popular, it will become law no matter how repressive or unjust it is. The solution to this problem is the courts, which have the power to overturn unjust laws no matter how many people support them. This is exactly what happened with Roe v. Wade. So even if abortion didn’t have majority support, it is still not a winnable issue.

Gay Marriage. This is an example of the right wing being once again on the wrong end of history. It happened previously with women’s liberation and black civil rights, and the gay marriage issue appears to be following a similar trajectory. Unfair social norms hold back some portion of the population based on something that does no harm to anyone and is not their fault. People complain, and the norms start changing. Bigots whine and cry and insist that changing these norms will destroy the Universe. Norms change. Universe still exists. Bigots 50 years down the road pretend that no one on the right ever opposed giving equal rights to that portion of the population. Wash, rinse, repeat. The tide is slowly but surely shifting on gay rights. It won’t be long before bigots are pretending they were never bigoted against gays, just like they are now pretending that conservatives never supported discrimination against blacks.

Obama’s assault on religious liberty. There’s simply no such thing. If anything, by expanding Bush’s bogus “Faith Based Initiatives,” Obama has assaulted secularism by getting the government even more entangled with religion. Pretty much every example people can come up with of Obama’s “assault” on religious “liberty” involves preventing someone from interfering with somebody else’s liberty. Obama wants insurance companies to cover contraceptives! He’s assaulting my liberty! Obama acknowledged the existence of atheists and Muslims in this country! He’s assaulting my liberty! Obama says I can’t prevent gay people from marrying! He’s assaulting my liberty! This is all bullshit. “Liberty” does not mean “power over others”. In fact, it means precisely the opposite.

[Obama’s] phony war on women. Need I remind you that you were just earlier wondering why no one defended the guy who said that women can’t get pregnant from “legitimate rape”? I hate the American tendency to call anything people argue over a “war”, but, call it what you want, the right wing has definitely attacked women on more than one occasion recently. The abortion thing is constant. But then there’s the numerous Republican candidates who made incredibly ignorant and insensitive comments about rape. And your brother calling a woman a “slut” just for testifying to Congress about the health benefits of the birth control pill. And let’s not forget that a sizable portion of the “social conservatives” you’re praising still believe in the Biblical notion that a wife is a servant of her husband and women can’t be priests/pastors and have authority over men. I don’t like calling it “war”, but there’s nothing phony about claiming that social conservatives are anti-woman.

Is there no issue on which the establishment will not cave in the end?

I mean, god damn! We already done gave rights to Negroes and Injuns! Where’s it gonna end?

The Republican Party can choose to ostracize social conservatives and their issues, or try to purge them altogether from the party and its platform. But they better be careful what they wish for, because if they do, it will be the end of the party as we know it.

It’s so cute how you keep saying good things like they’re bad things.

The Protocols of the Elders of Lyin’

The right wing blame game continues, as conservative bigots everywhere struggle mightily to simultaneously believe two incompatible propositions:

1.) They lost the election.

2.) They were never mistaken about anything. Ever.

Who to blame for the loss today? JEWS! Yes, that’s right, Jews. Every bigot’s favorite scapegoat since…oh, let’s say about 2,000 BC.

When you see a headline at WingNutDaily that reads “70% of Jewish Population Voted for Obama”, you know this article is gonna go one of two ways: Either A.) It’ll be a fiery zionist, pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian diatribe, or B.) an anti-semitic tirade against the Christ-killin’, Manishevitz-swillin’ banking conspirators. And guess what? It’s both! Well, the article is Zionist, the commenters on the article are anti-semitic (mostly).

I find Zionism boring, since it’s pretty standard claptrap on the right wing these days, but outside of the hallowed halls of wingnut websites like WingNutDaily you don’t see tried and true anti-semite bigotry as often these days, so let’s take a look at a few of the comments.

Sloppo

It is important to remember that the Jews are a diverse group.  There are the true Jews who try to follow God’s commandments and there are the ones who say they are Jews, but are not and are the Synagogue of Satan (as referenced in Rev3:9).  As far as I have noticed, the Bible does not indicate whether or not the real Jews are more numerous than the fake ones.  I suppose we can make our own rough estimates by considering the percentages of Jews which vote for marxist despots, own more than 80% of the pornography and propaganda industries, and follow the Babylonian Talmud instead of the Torah.

There are the True Jews™, and then there are the ones who just converted for the jokes. Use the Karl Rove’s Ass Method of Statistical Analysis to figure out how many of each. It’s like the Chi-Squared method but much, much more unhygienic.

Jews are a wicked people, it is in their DNA, they divorced themselves from God long ago, Satan will destroy most of them until God intervenes at the very last moment, as he promised

If they divorced themselves from god, and they’re the children of God, then who does god pay child support to? And why’d he marry his children? Maybe the Mormons are right and heaven really is in Missouri.

Tawny

Alexander,
It is a lie that Christians persecuted Muslims.  Muslims invaded lands that were Christian and persecuted Christians sometimes with the help of Jews.  Please spare me the Christian persecution of Jews because it is so overblown and historically inaccurate as to portray Jews as the victims of Christians.  Jews did all they could to destroy Christianity and the Church did not or ever condone persecution of Jews.

Sloppo

Jews probably consider national expulsion to be “persecution” and Christians have expelled Jews from their countries many times.  As I understand it, Jews have been expelled from countries more than 100 times.  On the other hand, considering the fact that 70% of Jews in America just voted for a government of theft (marxism), I can understand why some people might not want that influence in their country.

Yeah, that whole Holocaust thing was really overblown, am I right? And Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, writing in On The Jews and Their Lies calling

  1. for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
  2. for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
  3. for their religious writings to be taken away;
  4. for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
  5. for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
  6. for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and “put aside for safekeeping”; and
  7. for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor

doesn’t mean the Jews were persecuted. It means Jesus loves them and everything Christians do, like murdering millions of Jews, is done in the name of love! And what kind of idiot would think that being forcibly ripped from your home and expelled from the country is persecution? It’s harmless. We call it Compulsory Vacation Time here in fascist dipshit land.

steadfast

Only after hours of prayer have I chosen to post on this subject again.
First off to everyone who’s maligned God because I agree with His Word, God bless you.
Secondly, and please take this to heart, I love you Jew or gentile, and God does too.
Thirdly, Sin killed Jesus.
Fourthly, Love raised Him again.

Fifthly, Yabba yabba wakka flocka flame a flip a doodly doo.

Or, that’s all I gather from it. Seriously, steadfast’s post goes on for several more paragraphs, but I challenge you to extract anything from it that even barely resembles a coherent thought.

Tawny

Alexander,
Well too bad you live in a country founded on Judeo-Christian Principals. If you were voting “the law of the land” which happens to be the constitution you would not be voting for Obama.  So you are a liar and not too smart.

Hate to break it to you birther types, but Obama’s presidency is constitutional. Judeo-Christian principals (whatever those are), when taken out of the private sphere and inserted into government, are not. And yet, I don’t declare you to be an America hating terrorist who will burn forever just for wanting something unconstitutional. I just think you’re ignorant and bigoted.

Jews have always hated Christians and have always done what they could to destroy it.  You will not prevail.
Myself, I have always respected the Jewish religion, I’m tolerant.

“Always” in this context should be understood as meaning “except in the previous two sentences obviously”.

Christians don’t support Israel for the Jews.  They support it for themselves.

True. What scares me is that I can’t tell if you think that’s a good or a bad thing.

No_BlahBlah

Anyone still wondering how the Jews in Germany could be surprised when they got off the boxcars that all that was in front of them were ovens?

No_BlahBlah just packed a lot of blah blah into one sentence.

christhered Collapse

Many a comment has been to put down the Jews for their voting practices, but here’s the thing, Abba God, The Lord God Almighty, the God of Israel knew who was going to win, indeed he planned it. So maybe HE told his people what to vote for, and they OBEYED him. I know that when ever I go to vote I first ask Abba God who HE has chosen and I vote for them.

Who ever the winner I want to be on Abba’s side.

Which is why I always write in “The Dancing Queen” on every ballot.

As a catholic it is true that only REAL CATHOLICS not Catholics in name only or someone who is baptized catholic but doesn’t “believe” its teachings would vote for Romney or abstain from voting because of Romney’s past stance on abortion and gay marriage.  Any so called catholic who voted for Obama is NOT A CATHOLIC THEY ARE A HERETIC and should be kicked out of the church and not allowed to receive the sacraments.

REAL CATHOLICS love jesus so MUCH They love JESUS so HARD it renders THEM incapable of using PUNCTUATION and makes them capitalize random WORDS

Evolution pushes atheism which is a religion.  It wasn’t until 1963 that christian prayer was banned in school.  I guess the Jews were tortured and forced to convert to christianity cause of those darn school prayers.

The eugenics stuff wasn’t very pleasant either. But I bet you dumbshits blame evolution for that, too.

Maybe all the Hollywood Jew film makers want to make a movie on the after effects of devastation to Israel without spending a dime on set props. I’ll be praying for my Jewish freinds and for Israel.

I’ll pray for you, you fucking kikes!

Alexander Fellman

Well, speaking as a Jew, I actually do hate to hear Christianity preached to me. I really, really do. I consider Christianity fundamentally incorrect, offensive, and disgusting. Especially Protestant Christianity. If the doctrine of grace through faith alone is true, I will be happy to march into your (nonexistent) hell, because the Protestant ‘God’ is not worth worshipping.
Rabbi Jeshua ben Josef was not the Messiah, is not the Messiah, and will never be the Messiah. The Lord is not Three-In-One, but One, indivisible. Save as we are all the Lord’s Children, the Lord has no children. These are simple facts in my religion, and if Christians are allowed to speak what I consider nonsense, then I should be allowed to reject it completely, at both the voting booth and in public.

Here we have yet another example of someone who easily sees how silly and irrational other people’s religions are, but is blind to the silliness of his own. Yes, Alexander, Christianity is nonsense. But no less nonsensical than Judaism.

TJFod1

No one preached Christianity to you liar.

What you seem to not understand is that without Christians, American Christians—-Jews wouldn’t have made it out of the ovens of Germany.

Kiss my Christian *** . and don’t look for my son to bail Israel out

(Edited by a moderator)

Uh, there are about a gajillion people preaching in this very thread.

And seriously, this conversation is being moderated? “Kill the Jews” is okay, but don’t say the word “ass”?

john doe Collapse

Why can’t conservatives just admit that their candidate sucked, even amongst committed Republican voters? Let’s face it, Mitt Romney garnered only lukewarm support during the GOP primaries and had to be foisted upon the party faithful at the convention.

How can you expect American voters to get excited about a man whose own party wasn’t entirely convinced he was the right man for the job?

Pad Dar

Mitt Romney does not suck.
Obama is a foreign usurper and you that voted for him care more for your private parts than country, period.

If I had to choose between America and my penis, of course I’d choose my penis! In fact, any sane, rational person would choose my penis.

The distribution of intelligence in most populations is similar, unfortunately it appears the Jewish population’s intelligence as been increasingly skewed to the down-side; stupid is what stupid does, eventually all reap the consequences of their actions.

You just knew one of those pseudoscientific “race and intelligence” lummoxes would show up at some point. Racists are nothing if not predictable.

So what have we learned? Nothing, of course. Ignorance, bigotry, arrogance, fearmongering and racism are exactly what you expect to find in any thread at WingNutDaily. But it sure is fun mocking these dumbshits. 🙂 I can’t wait for the next batch of “blame anyone but ourselves” gibbersih from the far right wing loonies. It’s sure to be a blast. 🙂