The Dumbest Common Denominator

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=7855

It has long been my contention that the Republicans only win elections by appealing to the dumbest common denominator. It's a sad fact; there are simply more stupid people in America than there are smart people. If you pander to that base, you will find fertile soil from which to cull votes. It's not that hard to do. Simplification of the message, while doing the exact opposite thing behind the curtains, is the hallmark of the GOP. There are too many examples to be listed, but here are a couple of the more obvious ones, for those of you who must have them:

Tax cuts: Well, actually, the Bush administration has raised our tax burden by well over a trillion dollars since he took office, and there's no end in sight. With the help of a lapdog Congress, Bush merely cut the rate at which those most able to pay taxes have to pay them. Then he made a hefty surplus (his impetus for tax cuts in the first place) disappear from our coffers, and proceeded to run up half a trillion dollars a year in deficit. The fact that the tax code was adjusted to favor those at the top in no way exonerates the rest of us from having to pay back all the money. What's more, the longer it takes us to do it, the more interest we have to pay.

Pollution controls: After the EPA had managed, under Bill Clinton, to worm over a dozen landmark agreements from some of the worst corporate polluters in the nation, Bush swept it all under the rug. Then he basically told those captains of the poison industry (who rank among his most generous campaign contributors) that the pollution controls established under the Clean Air Act would be "relaxed". Free from regulation, he said, the polluters would be able to better manage their own affairs, and the result would be - somehow - less pollution. Of course, that's nonsense… But then, that's what Bush thinks of the Clean Air Act in the first place, which was signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1970, and was last amended in 1990 by George Herbert Walker Bush.

Anyway. There's no law against pandering to the intellectually addled; even morons are allowed to vote in this country, provided they've not committed any felonies in their lifetimes while under the veiled influence of idiocy. They're also allowed to write letters to the editors of their local papers, and with some editorial assistance, they even appear to be somewhat erudite in their statements. Well, maybe not… Today's Arizona Republic provides us with another couple of examples of what I'm talking about (you'll forgive me for naming names, I'm sure). Under the heading, "Quit Whining and Support Bush", one John Schwimmer of Scottsdale writes:

<snip>

Worth reading IMHO.

[tom_paine]

1. Nice article.

[zbdent]

2. Duh. Scream about needing the children to get better educations

and then cut funding which could actually help the issue.

Also, get in a big huff about paying a teacher's salary (where you actually have to offer good pay to get a quality teacher!) when a CEO gets an obscene salary, plus gets another obscene reward when he or she crashes and burns the company. Walks away smelling like a rose.

[Ardee]

3. No way to win an election

sorry but I do not understand some intellectual snob who can barely conceal his loathing for his fellow voters, even if those voters are so horrifically wrong.

It is cheap and easy to poke fun at the freepers, just as easy as it is to do the same with the neocons who masquerade as loyal democrats within the confines of this forum.

As long as the democrats continue their policies of silence and complicity I do not blame the electorate for hearing the only message out there, that of the GOP.

P.S. Hi Billy P......funny on some levels not so funny on others.....

[mistertrickster]

4. I deg to biffer . . . I agree a feigned superiority is loathsome and

anti-democratic, but you gotta give the writer his due. Most people are not looking past the sound-bytes and the headlines.

Even my own wife said at one point many months ago that the war in Iraq must be worth fighting because Blair was on board. She has since reversed herself, but still that's the attitude--"our gov't doesn't lie about sending soldiers into battle." And even if our gov't might, the British never would. Nevermind, that except for WWII (which was a response to an unambiguous attack at Pearl Harbor), we just about always get lied into war.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

5. I think I see both sides here...

You are right, a snobbish attitude will get us nothing but disdain.

The editorial rant probably was written after hearing Limbaugh or Hannity if not only after talking with one of their fans. Really. Their logic is barely skin deep composed of talking points and cliches.

P.S. Hi back, Ardee :hi: