Posted on 06/10/2007 9:40:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Listening to the recent debates among the candidates, monitoring their Websites and reading the poll numbers, one gets the impression that the Republican and Democratic primary electorates are living in two different nations -- or the same nation that faces two very different threats.
The Republicans want to protect us against Islamist terrorists. The Democrats want to protect us against climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Dimocrats need to stop plate tectonics.
or stop the sun from radiating so much heat!
I imagine some "brilliant" Democrat like Hillary or Kerry or Kennedy will propose a new tax to support a program or government agency to stop the movement of the continents. They have to save the earth you know.
No matter what the issue is, Hillary wants to take what we have.
...well, Liberals spend so much time in France and Syria I’m sure they get confused a lot....
Algore is already half-way there - he’s figured out how to turn off the sun at night when we’re not using it ;’}
As she and Bill continue to gather in millions.
Uh-huh.
This again???
Somebody go find those maps of the 2000 and 2004 election breakdown...The county version speaks volume...
Did lefties give much of a crap about climate change during Clinton’s term? They only care about when a Republican is President.
Let’s check their charity contributions.
The politicians have divided and conquered us.
We Americans have sinned, and we will be punished unless we repent and change our ways. We have been selfish, and we have failed to heed the advice of the more enlightened and sophisticated nations of the world. We must do penance by sacrificing some of our comforts (though not the gigantic houses and private jet travel of Al Gore or John Edwards). We must reduce carbon emissions by some tremendous percentage. Best discription of the "Enviromental" activist mindset I have ever read.
Red Nation, Blue Nation
By Michael Barone
Monday, June 11, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2007/06/11/red_nation,_blue_nation
Listening to the recent debates among the candidates, monitoring their Websites and reading the poll numbers, one gets the impression that the Republican and Democratic primary electorates are living in two different nations — or the same nation that faces two very different threats.
The Republicans want to protect us against Islamist terrorists. The Democrats want to protect us against climate change. Each side believes the other’s fears are largely imaginary. Rush Limbaugh regularly treats global warming theories as a “hoax.” A prominent political scientist dismisses Republican candidates’ appeals as sounding “like the day after Sept. 11.” When asked about possible new attacks, Democratic candidates — with the exception of Hillary Clinton — talk about seeking international support and understanding. Asked about climate change, Republican candidates — with the exception of John McCain — talk about getting more information.
Both threats are, in different ways, known unknowns. We don’t know where the next Islamist attack will come — Fort Dix? JFK Airport? — or when. We don’t know the effects of warming temperatures, or at what rate they might become apparent. And we can’t be sure whether our efforts to parry either of these threats will be availing. We can try to track down loose nukes, shadow suspected terrorists, protect the very many vulnerable potential targets in our open society. But the terrorists only have to succeed once, and we must succeed every time.
Similarly, we don’t know to what extent a reduction in carbon emissions will reduce global warming. Some scientists tell us that there has been greater climate change in past history due to factors over which we have no control — such as solar cycles and shifting ocean currents. In the 1930s, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin predicted that “the bomber will always get through.” We fear the terrorist will always get through, and we know the sun will.
The difference between the two parties’ constituencies reflects two different views of America and the world. Those who see Islamist terrorists as the proximate threat see a world in which Americans are largely blameless. Rep. John Murtha may think that the recently foiled plot against JFK Airport was a response to American intervention in Iraq, but September 2001 came before March 2003.
What we are guilty of, in Republican voters’ view, is at worst a botched attempt to spread freedom and democracy in the world. And the people who would attack us are, in this view, truly evil. Negotiation, propitiation, appeasement, confessions of guilt — none of these will reduce the threat. Vigilance and going on offense will.
Those who see climate change as the proximate threat take another view, one that has evolved into a kind of secular religion. Debate on the science of climate change must be shut down — you must have faith.
We Americans have sinned, and we will be punished unless we repent and change our ways. We have been selfish, and we have failed to heed the advice of the more enlightened and sophisticated nations of the world. We must do penance by sacrificing some of our comforts (though not the gigantic houses and private jet travel of Al Gore or John Edwards). We must reduce carbon emissions by some tremendous percentage.
Left mostly unspoken is which of the two mechanisms to reduce emissions will be used: a carbon tax, which will impose significant costs on everyone and big costs on some (coal miners, steel manufacturers), or a cap-and-trade system, which can be gamed by sharp operators (it was central to the business model of Enron).
He who defines the issues tends to determine the outcome of the election. When pollster Peter Hart asked a bipartisan focus group which candidate could best protect the nation, several people mentioned Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, one mentioned Barack Obama, and no one mentioned Hillary Clinton. Evidently these people, unlike international elites, see the threat as Islamist terrorism and not climate change.
We know which seems more threatening to Republican and Democratic primary voters. But what about independents, who favored Republicans in 2002 and 2004 and Democrats in 2006? The answer may tell you which side wins in 2008.
Michael Barone is a senior writer with U.S. News & World Report and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years. He is also author of Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan, The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again, the just-released Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Competition for the Nation’s Future.
Good article, but I’m afraid Barone is wrong on this one. He’s assuming that American voters are logical and informed instead irrational and emotional.
He’s assuming that American voters are logical and informed instead irrational and emotional.
I see a lot of that here.
Yeah, I know what you mean, sometimes, but not always. Frankly, it scares me. The Democrats are power hungry socialists who HATE our way of life and want to punish the white American male for all the ills of the world.
Most of the Republicans are wimps that are willing to sell out their own party for the chance to stay on the public payroll or fullfill their assumed political sestiny.
Yeah, I know what you mean, sometimes, but not always. Frankly, it scares me. The Democrats are power hungry socialists who HATE our way of life and want to punish the white American male for all the ills of the world.
Most of the Republicans are wimps that are willing to sell out their own party for the chance to stay on the public payroll or fullfill their assumed political destiny.
Interesting...particularly this reply
JonR says:
June 13th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
“…and we are NOT teetering on the brink of theocracy!…”
At the risk of repeating myself…as long as extremists such as the Moral Majority, the MN Family Council, D. James Kennedy, James Dobson and Pat Robertson control the Republican Pary, and they do, this country is most certainly on the brink of a theocracy. And that looming theocracy is just as dangerous as the theocracy that the Taliban wants to impose in Muslim countries.
I hope someone who occupies Planet Earth answered him. On second thought, it wouldn’t go any good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.