The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Of the top three or four candidates for the Republican nomination, one is a thrice-married recently converted Catholic; one is drug-legalizing libertarian; and one is a devout Mormon (do I really need to find a link for him?). Only one candidate, Rick Santorum, really fits the model of a traditional Republican social conservative.
Choice is good, in politics as in everything else, like pizza. But the prevailing noise from the left -- remember Theocracy Watch and the whole hysterical nonsense about Dominionsism, whatever that is? -- was terrified about the rise of the Republican theocrat. Those on the right were supposed to be religious nuts who had only one question: WWJVF? Who Would Jesus Vote For?
Again: since autumn, three of the top four candidates for the Republican nomination -- especially in states with strong traditions of Christian, Evangelical, and conservative political activism -- were a libertarian drug-legalizer, a twice-divorced Catholic convert, and a Mormon, which suggests that the Republican voter is pretty sophisticated, and asks himself a lot of questions besides WWJVF.
Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said the embrace of Mr. Romney and the fact that a black Republican, Tim Scott of Charleston, was elected to Congress from South Carolina in 2010 indicates that a new pragmatism may be taking hold.
“It suggests that the minds of South Carolinians are not as shackled by religion and race as they used to be and that we can more fully debate policy,” he said.
Ben Few, 66, an evangelical who owns a pharmacy in Spartanburg, said he supported Mr. Obama in the last election but was now backing Mr. Romney.
They can only bring themselves to talk about South Carolina. But the real news is -- to them -- that the Republican primary voter seems to be a lot more open, a lot less single-issue, and a good deal more politically thoughtful than they were given credit for, by folks like New York Times reporters.
I wonder if that rattles them? Just a little?
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Great minds think alike! I was just thinking about this with respect to the issue with Gingrich. It's kinda hard, for those who like to caricature Republicans/religious people as being hung up on such things, to not show themselves to be the ones who are judgmental and hypocritical about the standards they apply to candidates.
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Exactly! The two candidates most likely to win the South Carolina Republican primary -- which is supposed to be a hotbed of "intolerance" and Evangelical orthodoxy -- are a twice-divorced Catholic convert and a Mormon!
And yet the media still trots out that old saw about Republicans being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Evangelicals.
Jul '11
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Wait, it's not all evangelicals Rob? I'm leaving right now.
Edited on January 20, 2012 at 5:47amRe: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Wait until they find out they're all high priests of Cthulhu and the stars are right…
Apr '11
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Oh I think it rattles them a lot more than just a little. The left operates on the basis of a narrative. And that narritive is collapsing into complete implausibility.
Edited on January 20, 2012 at 5:51amSep '10
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
This has been true for a long time. In 1980 the Dems were nonplussed by the way evangelical Christians favored Ronald Reagan over "born again" Jimmy Carter. It never occurred to the Left that evangelicals can be moved by something more than identity politics. Perhaps that's because that's all the Left knows.
Sep '10
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
R'lyeh sounds like an excellent destination for a Ricochet cruise.
Jul '10
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
They point out South Carolina as what they see as the exception to the rule. Their minds aren't changed, and they're not irked, but they noticed a glimmer of what we've known for years. They are pointing out the blindingly obvious as a quaint oddity, like a subject out of place in the social hierarchy of an aboriginal tribe the NYT is compiling an ethnography of.
The more I mull it over, the more certain parts of the Voting Rights Act irk me. Specifically, the provision that any change in voter registration laws from certain states must be approved by the DoJ. How has this never seen the Supreme Court? And if it has, please, someone enlighten me. This is not an issue of state's rights; it's an issue of the will of the voters of certain states being subjugated to the whims of Federal appointees and bureaucrats. It is a perversion of the intent of the Voting Rights Act. Sorry to go off-topic, but I can't help but feel for the people of SC and other Southern states whose rights are trampled on by such provisions in otherwise right and proper legislation.
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Santorum helps them reassure themselves that the scary religious GOP narrative is still valid. After all, the guy's very name sounds like the Latin for something used to disinfect holy relics.
Dec '10
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
I'll tell you what a Neanderthal Harpootlian is.
Got that? Harpootlian says, as a Southerner, he thinks Lincoln was wrong.
Jul '10
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
They keep trying to drive to Miskatonic U. and photograph the "Vote Cthulu: Why Settle for a Lesser Evil" bumper sticker, but their GPSes just land them in swamps and onto unmaintained bridges.
Jul '11
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
The divide in this country has not been so vast since the decades leading up to the Civil War. All we're missing is a public caning to demonstrate the rift. This will be the most important election since 1860.
Edited on January 20, 2012 at 6:50amBill Walsh gets my vote for comedic one liner of the day. Lovecraft is smiling somewhere.
Dec '11
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Hopefully you're right, Rob and the evangelical stranglehold on the party is coming to an end.
After all, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, despite their shameless Bible-thumping, gained no traction, even in the Iowa caucus.
Let Tony Perkins and Bob Vander Plaats go out and find honest jobs.
Jul '10
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Humza Ahmad: ...
The more I mull it over, the more certain parts of the Voting Rights Act irk me. Specifically, the provision that any change in voter registration laws from certain states must be approved by the DoJ. How has this never seen the Supreme Court? And if it has, please, someone enlighten me. This is not an issue of state's rights; it's an issue of the will of the voters of certain states being subjugated to the whims of Federal appointees and bureaucrats. It is a perversion of the intent of the Voting Rights Act. Sorry to go off-topic, but I can't help but feel for the people of SC and other Southern states whose rights are trampled on by such provisions in otherwise right and proper legislation.
This was a remedy for an historic, systematic denial of the voting rights of blacks for almost a century. The re-establishment of black rights in southern states like Alabama involved federal occupation of school campuses, vitriolic standoffs between state governors and Presidents, and murderous vigilantism. The terms at the time were objected to, but not universally seen as disproportionate to the gross violation of civil order.
Jan '12
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Of course it rattles them but i won't hold my breathe for a for any meaningful change. The left's entire worldview is predicated on creating identities and narratives for various racial and class groups. They also view themselves and more intelligent and enlightened than the rest of us so until they abandon this behavior, it will be all but impossible for them to stop projecting this worldview on the rest of us.
Oct '11
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Sisyphus
This was a remedy for an historic, systematic denial of the voting rights of blacks for almost a century. The re-establishment of black rights in southern states like Alabama involved federal occupation of school campuses, vitriolic standoffs between state governors and Presidents, and murderous vigilantism. The terms at the time were objected to, but not universally seen as disproportionate to the gross violation of civil order. · 0 minutes ago
I understand that, but at this point, we're punishing people for crap their grandparents did.
Jun '10
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
"Many of the insights of the saint stem from their experience as sinners." --Eric Hoffer
I don't think Newt Gingrich is anywhere near sainthood yet, but both Catholics and Evangelicals would agree that past sinfulness is not the measure of a man. It's almost better to be a recovered devil. Everybody loves a salvation story. But confession is the easy part. Changing old habits of pride, selfishness, or petulance is always the hard part. That's where Newt needs some work. He'd do himself a lot of good with Evangelicals if he'd just talk about his spiritual struggles. No details, just goals.
Jul '10
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
Embittered Redleg
Sisyphus
This was a remedy for an historic, systematic denial of the voting rights of blacks for almost a century. The re-establishment of black rights in southern states like Alabama involved federal occupation of school campuses, vitriolic standoffs between state governors and Presidents, and murderous vigilantism. The terms at the time were objected to, but not universally seen as disproportionate to the gross violation of civil order. · 0 minutes ago
I understand that, but at this point, we're punishing people for crap their grandparents did. · 1 minute ago
No argument from this corner on that point, just trying to frame the historic context in which such a harsh and bald-faced abridgment of the 10th Amendment could have been seen as likely to stand a Constitutional challenge. It was, sadly, part of a string of such abridgments that have led us down a dark and slippery slope.
Edited on January 20, 2012 at 7:20amJul '10
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
And here I thought the word referred to a Roman mental hospital. No reflection on the good senator, of course.
Re: The NYTimes is Shocked: Suddenly, Republicans Aren't Religious Nuts
DocJay: Bill Walsh gets my vote for comedic one liner of the day. Lovecraft is smiling somewhere. · 1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
Thanks, Doc. I dunno, I'm guessing HPL wasn't much of a smiler. If he's anywhere, he's likely grinding his teeth of the universe's lack of unutterable, Cyclopean, sanity-shattering meaninglessness…
Dogsbody, I'm in for the R’lyeh cruise as soon as some gets me some non-Euclidean-strength Dramamine.
Sisyphus, the signage to Arkham is notoriously bad. Still, beats the hell out of the bus line to Innsmouth.