Contempt and the GOP [RINOs loathing social conservatives, Palin]

The Washington Times ^ | 2009-07-26

[rabscuttle385]

Can this political marriage be saved?

BY GARY BAUER

Psychologists have discovered that the most important factor in predicting whether a marriage will succeed or fail is the existence of contempt. When one or both partners display contempt -- the intense feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior -- the union, ultimately and almost inevitably, will fail.

Psychologist John Gottman has even developed a methodology that enables him to predict divorce with an astonishingly high degree of accuracy, up to 90 percent. While watching a couple interact, Mr. Gottman looks for the subtle signs -- microexpressions such as an eye roll or a patronizing tone -- that reveal not just displeasure or disapproval, but also the hostile inflexibility that is a hallmark of contempt.

As a political analyst and Republican of more than 30 years, I am saddened to say this, but contempt has contaminated the Republican Party. And much of the contempt has been directed at one partner in the party's marriage, religious conservatives. If the Republican partnership is to survive, the contempt must end.

[LibLieSlayer]

ABORTION IS MURDER!

ABORTION IS AGAINST GOD’S LAWS AND THE INTENT OF OUR FOUNDERS!

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

ABORTION IS ACCEPTING LIES, EVIL and satan for TRUTH, GOOD and GOD!

LLS

[Cedric]

Wow, my eyes have been opened!

I thought Barack Hussein Obama and George “The Anti-Christ” Soros were the enemy.

May God save us all from the dreaded Meghan McCain!

[HalfFull]

Interesting discussion bump.....

[ElPatriota]

You don’t see it? That’s fine. No time to waste.

[Victory Rocks]

I have some questions for the Palin critics here at FR who are so easily predicting Palin's political demise. Who will be the GOP nominee in 2012, and who will win the general election?

I hope Sarah Palin runs for President and wins, but because I don't have the psychic abilities Palin's critics seem to have, I don't know what the future holds for Sarah Palin. I don't know if she's running, since she hasn't officially announced yet, or how successful she'll be if she does run. To me it's still way to early. I don't know how she'll do in the GOP primary debates or who else will be running for the GOP nomination which, I imagine, will determine who does become the nominee. But I'm sure those with great unlimited wisdom such as yourselves will have no problem answering my questions.

And my last question. Why do Palin's critics here at FR act like they're smarter than Sarah Palin and all her supporters combined, and look down their noses at them like elitist snobs on the left do? Again since Palin's critics think they're God's gift to the conservative movement and are better than everyone who disagrees with them, they should have no problem answering this question as well.

[nathanbedford]

No apology needed, in fact if anyone should apologize it willis probably I.

I get a little bit touchy about reactions to reasonable and constructive criticism of Sarah Palin's campaign methods-if that in fact is what they are-because she is regarded by so many as Joan of Arc. She could be another Ronald Reagan but she will never be an electable commodity on the national stage if she does not care for her image. They will eat her alive out there unless she presents a professionally crafted image. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did, probably because he saw, as I did, what they did Barry Goldwater in 1964. The left is a pack of ravening wolves and no one can venture onto their turf believing that a pure spirit will protect them.

[HalfFull]

Call me simple minded but it seems to me that:

1. The press will marginalize any candidate it doesn't like
2. The landscape is littered with those who have underestimated Sarah Palin.
3. She has learned from being forced to do non-live interviews with Couric, Gibson, etc.
4. She is more intelligent than most on this board gives her credit for.
5. We social conservatives will demand that someone with values becomes the next candidate...RINOs will have to hold there nose like we have been doing.

[Al B.]

Thanks for the ping.

[LowCountryJoe]

I meant full open homosexuality in the military not whether you like the military or if your types approve or disapprove of homosexuality.

Oh, total mis-read on my part. No, I do not support full open homosexuality in the military; it's not good for overall morale and unit discipline. But, homosexuality in the military does, in fact, exist. Several years back a poll was done amogst the branches and it was determined that roughly 8% of its population was gay/lesbian and it is kept on the down low. You know, though, there were a few people that most of us suspected were gay and the truth was that very few of us that suspected that one of our fellow Marines was gay really gave a shit about it.

[ansel12]

Several years back a poll was done amogst the branches and it was determined that roughly 8% of its population was gay/lesbian and it is kept on the down low.

So you want the feds to restrain homosexuality in the military.

I would like to see your source that supports your claim that the military is a hot bed of homosexuality, being four to fives times more homosexual than society at large.

[techno]

GOD ONLY KNOWS WHO ADVISED HER (SARAH PALIN) TO MAKE THE SPEECH OF RESIGNATION WHICH SHE MADE. HER POLL NUMBERS AMONG REPUBLICANS HAVE SUNK BELOW ROMNEY’S AND ARE CLEARLY NOT GOOD ACROSS THE ELECTORATE...WE HAVE TO ARTICULATE OUR PRINCIPLES IN SUCH A WAY TO ATTRACT INDEPENDENTS AND MODERATES INTO OUR TENT.

Your proposition regarding Sarah Palin at this time is NOT accurate. Let me deal first with the public response right after the resignation. PPP conducted a “Palin” poll right after which they released July 7th which showed that from the last PPP poll on June 18th to July 7th (3 weeks) Sarah Palin’s favorables/unfavorables went up 7 points overall and 3 points in her favorables (46/45). This was confirmed basically by Gallup in July 16th which had Sarah’s favorables/unfavorables at 43/45. and PPP on July 21st at 47/45. Then of the same day Rasmussen released a poll (conducted post-resignation) which showed Romney at 25% and Palin at 24% in a horserace for 2012 with Palin having the highest favorables among voters who consider national security and cultural issues as their number one issue and was tied with Romney in those who considered the economy the number one issue and on July 7th USA/Gallup released a poll that 72% of Republicans and 44% of indies would vote for Sarah.

Now with regards to Romney you are flat wrong. The PPP poll on July 20th reveals a significant gap between Palin and Romney in many favorable/unfavorable categories:
F UF
OVERALL
PALIN 47 45
ROMNEY 37 37

ALL CONSERVATIVES
PALIN 73 18
ROMNEY 53 20

ALL REPUBLICANS
PALIN 76 19
ROMNEY 54 25

MODERATE REPUB
PALIN 64
ROMNEY 45

CONSERV REPUB
PALIN 81
ROMNEY 58

Again nathanbedford you are flat wrong.

And finally Palin’s standing among moderates and independents have gone up substantially. with moderates, Sarah is #1 among moderate Republicans at 64% (and also #1 with conservative Republicans at 81%) according to the PPP poll on July 20th and if you look at Sarah’s favorables/unfavorables with independents since May 21st which PPP showed at 34/58 and then on July 20th which it showed at 45/43 which is a 26 point turnaround in 2 months.

And finally on July 20th Rasmussen released a poll that showed in a head-to-head matchup voters would vote 45% for Romney and 45% for Obama and 48% for Obama and 42% for Obama. If this is your sole justification for claiming that Sarah is lagging behind Romney then I believe your analysis is flawed because of the evidence provided by the crosstabs but I could also make the claim that by Sarah only trailing the Messiah 6 points does make her also a credible candidate for the presidency in 2012.

[ansel12]

I have some questions for the Palin critics here at FR who are so easily predicting Palin's political demise. Who will be the GOP nominee in 2012, and who will win the general election?

I do a lot of post searching of anti-Palin posters and they mostly consist of hard core Romney devotees and/or anti-social conservative/antiGod types, a large number of them are even old Giuliani supporters.

The rinos are more visible because of her.

[Arthur McGowan]

The willfully-held fantasy that the child changes in nature by passing through the birth canal is the fig leaf employed by some “pro-choicers.”

But there are millions of “pro-choice” people who simply do not care about the nature of the child at all. They want the liberty to kill it; the government says they can have that liberty, if they just vote for the right people; and that’s all they are concerned with.

[ansel12]

I am not going to comment on the fact that Mrs. Palin is indeed the darling of a "certain element."

That "certain element" is the conservative movement.

Look at who votes and you will find that the non-social conservatives that vote conservative is small because the anti socon or non religious voters are almost all democrat voters, so when talking to a non social conservative that votes conservative, remember that he is kind of rare.

[staytrue]

contempt has contaminated the Republican Party. And much of the contempt has been directed at one partner in the party's marriage, religious conservatives. If the Republican partnership is to survive, the contempt must end.

Ok, normally I don't have contempt for my fellow conservatives, but now I do. Are you morons so blind as to not be able to see YOUR OWN CONTEMPT FOR THE "RINOS"

Furthermore, this right wing ideologue Bauer ran for president and got maybe 1000 votes before quiting. He is a prime candidate for the Mr. Sour Grapes award.

Finally, virtually every republican, including the moderates, like Palin. Her detractors say "not ready, but promising", "green", "inexperienced with potential", etc.

Just keep on hating boys, and even your friends will desert you.

[Hugin]

Everybody on this I have seen on this board who “bashes international trade”, as you put it, does so because they are nationalist, not Marxist. They make the arguements made by Pat Buchanan, that international trade agreements erode soveriegnty, and that formerly American corporations (who consider themselves “transnational” until they need a bailout) benefit from those agreements, at the expense of ordinary Americans. They oppose allowing institutions controlled by foreigners to dictate tarrif policy, a power delegated to Congress under the Constitution.

You could also take a look at how many people who take part in negotiating those agreements later go to work as consultants for foreign corporations and governments. The truth is most people who “bash foriegn trade” here don’t oppose foreign trade, they oppose trade that hurts ordinary Americans while the same people who have run US economic policy under Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama never seem to change and do just fine.

[LowCountryJoe]

Good points. But nationalism is still economically unwise populist drivel. And the fact that many corporations use politicians as a tool to curry favor and game the competitive landscape is not free market in any way shape or form.

[LowCountryJoe]

So you want the feds to restrain homosexuality in the military.

I do not understand your question. That was a question, right?

I would like to see your source that supports your claim that the military is a hot bed of homosexuality, being four to fives times more homosexual than society at large.

It was an article in the Navy Times sometime between 1996 and 1998, IIRC. I'd like to see you cite numbers that indicate that the rest of our society is roughly 2% homosexual. In the mean time, I'll try and find a link to the article.

[ansel12]

Yes it is a question, do your types support unrestrained, fully open homosexuality in what you claim is a military that is 8% homosexual?

[LowCountryJoe]

Okay, we’re getting nowhere here. I already answered your question in post#89. To state again, no, I do not support that. Now, what is meant by “your types”? Do you mean people that have a little more tolerance and acceptance of homosexualty. We’re still talking about a lot of decent people here, ya know?