But every racist I know is a Republican.  The GOP needs these people, but doesn't want to pay the price for using them.  Furthermore, they have to control their message, since there is only a very narrow band of marketing bullshit that is market-tested and reliable enough to sell the GOP's continuing policy failures to the American people.  If their readers can't keep from using "private" instead of the focus-grouped "personal," they'll just have to be shut up.  

The right's message is a delicate little flower, isn't it?  

The reponse you've endured so far is typical in that it doesn't matter that they've deliberately missed the point and you nailed them with their own words.  They're sorry excuse for a rebuttal is meant only for their readers' consumption.  They'll never read your original.  They need only be told that you were wrong.  

After decades of owning the conversation in this country, conservatives have produced an intellectually weak generation.  They've never had to argue a point, so they never learned how.  

So, they just tell their faithful readers that there's nothing to see here ....
.

>>the increasingly extreme and racist nature of  their base.

I think an issue in this disccussion is using 'the base.'  I do not believe the base of the GOP is  right-wing wackos, but those same wackos are part of the GOP system.

That said, as more and more people, on both sides of the aisle, become concerned with the actions of the Bush administration, the wackos become more and more concentrated in the group of people who still bow to the alter of dubya.

Wow. That's gotta hurt.

I think your analysis is right on target and it stings all the more for that reason.

aimai

And what that means is that ultimately, the right-wing is doomed.  We are moving to an open world, one where the Mike Turk's of the world can't modify the record to suit their audience and the Michael Steele's of the world can't hide from their true extremist sentiments.

Two comments on this:

1. Amen
   
2. From your lips to God's ears

That is all.

IMO, Turk seems to be making the exact same point as you.  

Another study presented at the conference, which was in Palm Springs, Calif., explored relationships between racial bias and political affiliation by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes -- subtle stereotypes people hold about various groups.

That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.

In the WaPo.

FWIW, I've goofed in the direction of your Haaavad edumacation too from time to time, but only because I'm defensive of my own academic and cultural credentials.

It's interesting, because the GOP has made it's most ardent (or, if you prefer the normative term, rabbid) constituents a part of its machine, to great political effect as we can all see. This goes all the way back to Four Sisters money; all those rich mofos who founded The Machine were pretty much crackpots too. Probably goes all the way back to Goldwater.

What Republican party machinists realized was that in the era of mass media, they could control their message to the degree that they had different channels. Some -- like talk radio, or book clubs, or newsletters -- reach only the faithful. These are more or less opt-in communications, and are in a tactically political sense "private." Others, what public officials say, what happens on the major news outlets, etc, are the "Public face of the party."

One problem is that the long-run effect of this is that when you cultivate your talent though these backchannels, you're more likely to get people who slip up in public, or (like Coulter) start to mix up the public/private message. And you have an audience that loves it and wants more, feeling validated by seeing their deeply-held beliefs in the spotlight. Combine that with the increasing openness of the media landscape, which is causing institutions to move further down the talent-tree looking for spokespeople and representatives, and you have a pretty big potential crisis.

The GOP is not a simple majority, it's a very large coalition that has some very significant internal contradictions. This has been mediated by the fact that the coalition doesn't interact much except at the highest levels, where top leaders can agree to work together to maintain and share Power. However, this sort of thing is going to be increasingly unworkable as people further down the foodchain enter the picture.

They're also facing the prospect of a de-energized base as 4-years of total control of the government yeild very little in terms of results the activist base cares about. These people believe in principles, twisted though those may seem to people like you and me. They're just as vulnerable to dissillusionment as all the activist constituencies on the Left. Republican leaders rely in things like being out of power ("those evil liberals!") or being at war ("gotta fight the ragheads!") as excuses for not legislating to meet the base's desires. It's been a winning strategy, but I sense a pattern of diminishing returns.

who worship Cindy Sheehan, mock and scorn the Pope and all organized religion and Christianity, want abortion on demand ("it's my body!!") are every bit a problem as the red state nutbags.

I think the righties are sensitive because they know just how fragile their crummy little coaltion is.  If they lose any one of the consituent parts (gun nuts, fundies, abortion crusaders, fat cats) they are done.  Their margin in Presidential elections has been razor-thin, and they know they are walking on thin ice.  Continued lying is the only mechanism they have for keeping their sorry ass party together.

everybody talks about the GOP 'base'.  May I remind you that in Arabic 'the base' is 'al-qaeda'

Mike Krempasky writes something in his response that kind of blows my mind.

Oh, and by the way. If you didn't notice - our guys beat their guys eight ways from Sunday online in 2004. And if I were a betting man - I'd say tantrums like this are simply going to ensure more of the same.

I'm not exactly sure what he means by all of this. Does anyone have net fundraising numbers handy? Maybe they beat us online at Warcraft III. I've never been all too good at the online war strategy gaming thing, but if I were a betting man, I'd say they would be much, much worse.

ihlin says:

"The leftist extremists who worship Cindy Sheehan, mock and scorn the Pope and all organized religion and Christianity, want abortion on demand ("it's my body!!") are every bit a problem as the red state nutbags."

If you mean these "leftist extemists" I'd say we are in good company...

Thomas Jefferson:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
Letter to William Short

Jefferson again:

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

More Jefferson:

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

Jefferson's word for the Bible:

"Dunghill."

John Adams:

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams:

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Thomas Paine:

I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."

"The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

James Madison:

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

In fact, Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Many of the most popular left-leaning blogs were started by individuals who just felt such a strong sense of moral outrage that they just had to say something about in public. They then attracted a following of like-minded individuals.

Many of the right-leaning blogs were started by political operatives or politically funded by such groups. Their task is to keep the core message in front of their "base" and to try to attract those who don't have strong affiliations, or are not expert on the issues. Everything they do is in support of these aims. The proof can be seen in how dissent is handled. On the left dissenters are argued with, on the right dissenters are banned.

So, if one enjoys public "debates" with the rightwing "bloggers" then have at it. But, it's a suckers game because they can take their position to the liberal sites, but the reverse isn't tolerated.

My 2 cents is go ignore the prominent posters and stick to debunking their policy positions.

Even though we all mostly know the history below, it's helpful to throw it out their one more time to put this discussion in its proper context.

In the 1940's and 50's Democratic Senators from the Deep South consistently and successfully fought to uphold the racist status quo. Truman, Eisenhower and the Rayburn-led House were all in favor of passing at least minimal civil rights legislation. The anti-black racist Southern Dem Senators didn't allow any legislation to be passed until the late 50's, and it took LBJ's "betrayal" of southern racist support to get any meaningful legislation through.  

In response to opportunities presented racist fury at that meaningful legislation, the Republican Party sought the support and membership of those racist Senators and their supporters.

Their efforts were extensive, and mostly successful. Senators Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi openly supported GOP candidate Goldwater in 1964. Senator Thurmond switched to the GOP, and Senator Byrd (Jr.) of Virginia left the Dems to go independent. Senator Robertson of Virginia resigned from his seat in 1966 and aided the Nixon '68 campaign. Many others remained nominal Democrats, but stopped supporting the national party.

In particular, let us not forget that the anti-black racists so assiduously courted by the GOP in the 60's and 70's openly fought the agenda of MLK and Corretta, sometimes via unlawful means. How could Coretta King's funeral have not included a condemnation of the forces arrayed against her noble cause? How could any reasonable consideration of those forces not include the Republican Party's courtship of them, and continuing failure to repudiate them?

Of course, the Republican Party courted anti-black support just as the increasingly powerful liberal wing of the Democratic Party began to repudiate its own racist history.

In 1948, Hubert Humphrey courageously spoke and fought for civil rights at the Dem Convention. Nixon would later defeat him in 1968 with the support of most Southern anti-black racists. In 1956, Al Gore Sr. was one of the few Southern Dems not to sign the "Southern Manifesto", a racist screed that denied the legitimacy of Brown v. Board and congratulated Southern states "which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means."  Gore lost to GOP candidate Bill Brock in 1970; Brock emphasized racial themes in the campaign and courted racist support.

Even as late as 1981, Lee Atwater said that the word 'nigger' was made unacceptable by changing attitudes re civil rights - ("that hurts you. Backfires.") - but that using wedge issues "like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff" accomplishes the same goal.

It's no surprise that Repubs are sensitive to charges of racism. They should be.

I think it is semantics. They all agree that they want the program. The message from on high is to use misleading terminology. Others were bing more straighforward in the way they put things. But there was no difference in policy objectives.

"And what that means is that ultimately, the right-wing is doomed.  We are moving to an open world..."

I assume you are talking about blogging as being a powerful way of responding to, and being out ahead of the MSM. Don't count on blogging to continue to be as freewheeling as it is now. If the blogosphere is as open ten years from now, I would be surprised.
Big Brother is coming, and boy, is he pissed...