And racist and homophobic and narrow-minded and backward and primitive.
At least, that's what the moonbats say every chance they get. Just look at some of the comments from the linked post at Pandagon.
Cris: I’ll give the Republican base a little bit of credit: I think most of their love of authoritarianism is class-based. The fact that economic class coincides heavily with racial demographics is simply a bonus.
Amanda Marcotte: I can’t think of many things more stereotypically fruity than being an actor, which is one reason why conservatives rail against Hollywood to shore up support. But they keep voting for actors. As long as you race-bait and radiate a general asshole vibe, they’ll overlook a lot, which is why the dressing in drag thing won’t matter.
Plus, there’s a long tradition in the frat houses and Bohemian Groves of power of men dressing up as women not to be doing drag but to mock women. I’m sure that his drag act will be rationalized as the more standard woman-hating.
Dan: I’ve long said that Giiuliani’s (sic) lack of gay-bashing credentials will happily be overlooked in light of his well-established race-bashing credentials.
I mean hell, the wingers only gay-bash so hard because its a second-best outlet for all the hate they would be putting into race-bashing if it were more socially acceptable.
Steve: It is true that the republicans have become the black shirt party, but they still have to be assured that their candidate has some conservative credentials.
That's just a small sampling, but you get the idea. Hell, you don't have to hang out with the drooling Pandagonistas to see this sort of labelling. Go to half the moonbatty sites out there and you're sure to find more than a couple of apologists and excuse-makers for the boorish behavior so prevalent on the Left, including calling Americans stupid.
It's rare for me to agree with David Brooks on anything--I had to go check to make sure it wasn't snowing here in Hotter'n'Hell Texas--but I agreed with him in this New York Times column.
Between 2000 and 2006, a specter haunted the community of fundamentalist Democrats. Members of this community looked around and observed their moral and intellectual superiority. They observed that their policies were better for the middle classes. And yet the middle classes did not support Democrats. They tended to vote, in large numbers, for the morally and intellectually inferior party, the one, moreover, that catered to the interests of the rich.
Serious thinkers set to work, and produced a long shelf of books answering this question. Their answers tended to rely on similar themes. First, Democrats lose because they are too intelligent. Their arguments are too complicated for American voters. Second, Democrats lose because they are too tolerant. They refuse to cater to racism and hatred. Finally, Democrats lose because they are not good at the dark art of politics. Republicans, though they are knuckle-dragging simpletons when it comes to policy, are devilishly clever when it comes to electioneering. They have brilliant political consultants like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, who frame issues so fiendishly, they can fool the American people into voting against their own best interests.
It's hard to believe that anyone would have followed the voting record of Democrats for the last 40 years and not noticed the overwhelmingly racist, sexist, and bigoted behavior on display. How can Democrats claim they aren't good at "the dark art of politics" after running the infamous James Byrd ad against George Bush in 2000? Or the fact that a 24-year-old DUI became a news story just before the 2000 election?
Are these people serious that Democrats "refuse to cater to racism and hatred" when their own sites are filled with it on a daily basis?
Brooks doesn't go into the hypocrisy of Democrats playing the race card at every opportunity, then claiming Republicans are racists. He doesn't point out the deceitfulness involved with October surprises designed to push swing voters to vote Democrat.
No, Brooks just points out something obvious.
It’s not necessary to dumb things down to appeal to emotions. It’s not necessary to understand some secret language that will key certain neuro-emotional firings. The best way to win votes — and this will be a shocker — is to offer people an accurate view of the world and a set of policies that seem likely to produce good results.
This is how you make voters happy.
I would put it this way:
The reason so many people have voted for Republicans in the last 30 years is because Republicans have endorsed policies that supported families and individuals versus government involvement, high taxation, and less private control. Most Americans--believe it or not--think they can make it in this country and they dislike politicians telling them that they can only succeed through government interference and "luck." And Americans don't want to vote for jerks who constantly sneer at their values and beliefs. It's funny, but most people just don't want to vote for people who tell them they're stupid. Funny, isn't it?
|