How Republicans won: Irrational fears trumped real perils

ebolaIt was masterful of right-wing manipulators to claim that President Obama was exposing Americans to the Ebola virus by allowing illegals to cross the Mexican border.   Obviously false on many levels, this canard may still have aided the Republicans nearly sweep the mid-terms this past Tuesday.

We know that conservatives have especially powerful reactions to frightening and disgusting images.  Conflating the disgust and fear-inducing Ebola virus with terrifying hordes of brown people streaming across the border doubled the effectiveness of each phony issue.

The irony of course is that conservative policies have caused or exacerbated real perils confronting large numbers of Americans:  Global warming, gun massacres, and poverty come immediately to mind.  But democrats couldn’t convert these issues into election victories.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to How Republicans won: Irrational fears trumped real perils

  1. Griff Stone says:

    Hi Hal,
    Your ‘ole high school & ski bum buddy Griff here…First, I really love this site — haven’t visited before…great job…Down to business — With so many populist ballot issues winning across the states, especially on the pot & minimum wage front, but many of the same states also giving us Conservatives & Tea Tards in the House & Senate….the solution is obvious: There needs to be popular, easy to access site showing the results of every single House & Senate vote……Let The People see who votes against 99% of them time & time again!

    Also, as posted on the right — While Tuesday was crushing, I was happy that I donated to Scott Peters’ campaign to regain my former district’s 52nd seat in Congress…he won a tough contest against Tea Tard, uber-Conservative, Koch brothers’ boy — and homosexual if that makes sense — Carl DeMaio who tried to destroy SD city workers’ pensions when he was on the City Council. You may have read or seen on CNN that this DeMaio clown had two staffers come out stating that DeMaio called them (at different times) into his office where he started, how do I say, “jerking his chicken” in front of them. This DeMaio was the same guy accusing Bob Filner of sexual misconduct when he ran against Filner for Mayor of San Diego….

    • halginsberg says:

      Griff – it’s always great to hear from you. Glad you’re still fighting the good fight. Call in some time to discuss on line – 844-FOR-HALG. Re: Carl DeMaio – ewww!

  2. Shade says:

    Republicans have spun the downsides of Obamacare to the point that Obama now owns anything that happens bad regarding people’s healthcare. For example, there’s nothing new about premium increases, but now when they happen – even if it is for better coverage – Obama gets the blame. Often the evoked tone of the complainant suggests they have more problems with Obama than just his politics. The situation is particularly unfair because Republicans have blocked all legislation that would address legitimate Obamacare issues that have been identified. Those same partisans then turn around and milk both legitimate and fantasized Obamacare issues to the hilt, insisting that the only acceptable solution is repeal. Obamacare’s support has been further unfairly weakened by the SCOTUS decision that allowed states to opt out of expanding Medicaid, as this mostly affected states with large needy populations, and thus these people now see little reason to give Obamacare their support.

  3. Shade’s bumper-sticker contest entry: says:

    Vote Republican: 1% get rich as CEOs or by Wall Street abuse.
    Vote Democratic: 99% get living-wage jobs, healthcare, & Social Security in retirement.

  4. Shade’s bumper-sticker contest entry: says:

    NAFTA, SAFTA, SHAFTA: Republican-supported “Free Trade” agreements mean your living-wage job & economic security is traded to 3rd world so they can export cheap crap back to us.

  5. Shade’s bumper-sticker contest entry: says:

    NAFTA, SAFTA, SHAFTA: Republican-supported “Free Trade” agreements mean your living-wage job & economic security is traded to 3rd world so they can export cheap crap back to us.

    Net Neutrality: The Democratic “New Deal” Rural Electrification plan of the 21st century.
    Don’t let Republicans leave you in the dark.

    TarSands pipeline:
    A Republican proposal to bring the localized water contamination of fracking to the entire continent.

  6. Shade’s revised sound bites & bumper-sticker contest entries: says:

    TarSands pipeline: The Republican proposal to bring
    the drinking water contamination of fracking to the entire continent.
    ——————————————————————————–

    Solar & wind energy deserve tax credits. Oil companies make
    more money than God without their Republican-sponsored subsidies.
    or:
    Oil companies make
    more money than God without their Republican-sponsored subsidies.
    ————————————————————————————

    Net Neutrality: The Democratic Rural Electrification plan of the 21st century.
    Don’t let Republicans leave you in the dark.
    ————————————————————————————–

    Vote Republican & 1% get rich as CEOs or by unscrupulous acts on Wall Street.
    Vote Democratic & 99% get living-wage jobs, healthcare, & Social Security in retirement.
    ——————————————————————————————-

    On Social Security? Republicans believe a 1.7% “Cost Of Living Adjustment” was too much.
    With their proposed “chained-CPI”, the only affordable meal will be catfood.
    ———————————————————————————————————

    Republican-“Free Trade” agreements suck our living-wage jobs away.
    In exchange, the 3rd world ships us cheap crap.
    or:
    Ross Perot was right. “NAFTA/SAFTA/TPP” all suck our jobs away.
    or:
    Ross Perot was right. ”NAFTA/SAFTA/TPP” “Free Trade Agreements”
    all suck our living-wage jobs away.
    —————————————————————————————————————–

    The last Bush Presidency ended with an economic “Blue Screen Of Death”.
    Dare we risk going back where we came from?
    or:
    The last Republican Presidency ended with an economic “Blue Screen Of Death”.
    Dare we risk going back where we came from?

  7. Jeff Linder says:

    Hal and John ridiculing the a quest because they don’t agree with him. To bad they didn’t bother to check the veracity of his statements first. They would have saved themselves much embarrassment.

    Tariff of Abominations

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    “Tariff of 1828” was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy.

    The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the northern United States which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods by taxing them. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the U.S. made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.[1] The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832.[2]

    • halginsberg says:

      Okay. The tariff hurt (a little) the overlords in a feudal economy based on slave labor (sound familiar?). Is the takeaway that tariffs are therefore bad?

      • Jeff Linder says:

        So you were wrong yet again and used that false conclusion to attack someone who clearly knew what they were talking about…and you have the hubris to claim that liberals always have the facts on their side. You and John even hear what you want to here. Your guest clearly said “Net user” of government but you chose to fixate on what he didn’t say and then attacked him on that. And you wonder why you can’t get guests….

        • halginsberg says:

          I questioned (but did not deny) Del Beccaro’s assertion that the south paid 70% of the tariffs collected in the 19th century. I assume what he meant is that 70% of imported goods (subject to the tariff upon entry into US) were sold in slave states. Neither you nor Del Beccaro has provided any evidence in support of this claim. I have posted interview here.

    • There’s been a constant dog-whistle race-baiting by Repubs as long as I can remember. Dems tend 2avoid race topic if they can. In last election, says:

      You’ll probably call this race-baiting Jeff, but what else is it that you liked so much about the basis of the economy on the old Confederate South? Are you upset you being White, you are no longer entitled to have some slaves to do your physical work & perhaps a harem of housekeepers on the side?

      It’s all similar to the problem we have with China & the rest of the third world now. Workers in the U.S. that get paid fair living-wage paychecks and that have a social safety net (that includes healthcare & Social Security upon disability or retirement) can’t compete with disposable child/slave labor and the lack of pollution controls. To make things fair, there needs to be compensating tariffs or taxes. Now if we were to do that, and I think we should, I guess you would feel it only right that China would attack & try to take us out.

      • Sorry, off-topic title... forgot to clear the title from a prior post. says:

        Sorry, off-topic title… forgot to clear the title from a prior post.

        • Jeff Linder says:

          Shade,
          I never said I liked it. What the tariffs at the time did was put an undo burden on the South that the North benefitted from in several ways.

Leave a Reply to Sorry, off-topic title... forgot to clear the title from a prior post. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *