View Single Post
Old 07-09-2009, 01:35 PM   #1 (permalink)
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE
Senior Member
 
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,501   (View Stats)
Credits: 12,362
Golden State Warriors
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Why do Republicans have a monopoly on these sorts of things

This is a general thing I have been wondering for a long time. Just in the last few weeks, a Republican Senator (Jim DeMint) says that the U.S. under Obama is like Germany under Hitler, a Republican congresswoman (Michelle Bachman) says that the census will be used to bring back something like the internment of Japanese people, a Republican state legislator (in Arizona) says that the earth is 6000 years old, a view that a Republican governor (Sarah Palin) holds, a Republican congressman (Steve King) casts the lone vote against commemorating slavery's role in the construction of our capital, a Republican Senator (Jefferson Sessions) supports a coup in Honduras, a Republican radio anchor (Rush Limbaugh) advocates for a coup in America, a Republican news anchor (Brian Kilmeade) advocates his desire for a racially "pure" society, a Republican congressman (Mark Kirk) says to Chinese officials that he thinks the United States is lying about its budget numbers, thus undermining the US's relations with China, a Republican secretary of defense (Rumsfeld) admitted to breaking geneva conventions, the vice-chair of the Young Republicans thought it was funny to call Obama a "mad coon," a "terrorist," a "communist," etc. And that is all literally just in the last couple of weeks and off the top of my head. And then, of course, one could devote pages to Palin and Sanford's recent kerfuffles.

My question is, ideology aside, why do you think it is that Republicans seem to have four of these types of controversies for every one that Democrats have? Sure, Democrats do these types of things from time to time (see California assembly speaker Karen Bass saying that her opponents were "terrorists" and didn't deserve free speech), but why is it that these sorts of events, which seem like they should be completely unrelated to party affiliation, only happen to one party these days? Does it have to do with the fact that there's a lower threshold to become a prominent figure in a smaller, more extreme party? Is it just a byproduct of a party that was built from a coalition that included religious fundamentalists and racists as major components?
__________________


12 For 12 in series predictions. Round 3: Cleveland in 5, LA in 7.
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links