Quote:
Originally Posted by SackAttack
I feel I was pretty narrow in my definitions... I don't consider Scott Walker a conservative. I consider him an asshole.
...
Likewise, I didn't say Republicans are mouth-breathers or that conservatives are mouth-breathers. I said that people who judge the quality of a politician first or mainly on whether he "pisses off the Democrat Party" fall into that camp. Because supporting a candidate on that basis is explicitly not about values. That's about straight up being willing to be an asshole to other people if it pisses off people whose politics you don't like.
|
More it's a general lack of respect for the "other" side. I'd like these items to be an island where we all respect that people may feel passionately about some issues - issues we feel just as passionately about in a different way.
When you put forth the straw man that there are stupid people out there who choose their candidates based on who pisses off their own version of a straw man, it's not showing respect.
To many in the Mid-West, someone who goes after the teacher unions is a hero. You may feel that's awful. Many in my family feel that's awful. But to others, unions, rightly or not, are blamed for severe job loss, home values plummeting, unemployment, crime...
Many look at Illinois, which has been generous with public-sector unions, and see an impending bankruptcy that the federal government may not rescue.
Walker is a hero to them. The image of him surviving a recall after those protests in Madison is a strong one. That doesn't make them mouth-breathers or bad people or people who make decisions based on how much they upset others.
Walker's popularity right now may be partially based on his image as a strong foil to bogeymen, real or imaginary. But he's done enough for a lot of intelligent Republicans to want to hear him out.