So, dear readers, I give you Jimmy from Nebraska. I will address the style and substance of Jimmy's post (Jimmy in italics, my response in bold):
nice heading for this blog,
Hmmm. Thank you, but those of us in the uneducated South start our sentences with capitals. Did you mean the blog itself, or the post?
after reading your responses I have to say, you are indelibly great...
Again, that capitalization thing. And, I AM great. Did you mean incredibly, perhaps? If you mean indelibly as “that cannot be eliminated, forgotten, changed, or the like,” I will take that as high praise and accept your compliment. Thank you, Jimmy. Also, thanks for the correct usage of “you are” and “your.” You were 2 for 2 in the same sentence. Impressive!
accept for the fact that you're just another idiot
Accept? Perhaps you mean “except.” But, you got “you’re” right!
On the substance: The Left never ceases to amaze with the level of their debate. I am demonstrating that you, sir, ARE an idiot. All you can do is call me one.
protagonising the republican pitch to uneducated people around the country.
Protagonising? Since there is no word, “protagonising,” I assume you are making a verb of the noun “protagonist.” In this case the definition being “a proponent for or advocate of a political cause, social program, etc.” This would make “to protagonize” mean “to advocate for a particular cause.” I like it. Not a word, but I like the meaning. This is a minor point, but, since I am grading, when you are talking about the Republican party, capitalize it.
On the substance: This sentence AFTER calling me an "idiot."
and don't refute the fact that people residing in rural areas are more likely to vote republican and are, on the whole, less educated than people residing in urban environment.
Again, capitalize the R in Republican. It’s either “in an urban environment,” or “in urban environments.” I don’t like the entire construction of the clause, so let’s try, “less educated than people who live in urban areas.”
On the substance: Ever see the county-by-county breakdowns of election results in 2004 and 2008. You are, obviously correct, those who live outside urban areas are decidely conservative and vote Republican. However, I challenge the assumption that they are either less educated, or less intelligent. You ever looked at the state of schools in urban areas? It's awful. I contend that these people are just as knowledgeable about politics and current events as their urban kin (maybe more so, actually) and they bring some much simpler and straightforward (not as "nuanced") values to the voting booth. I am proud to have them on my side. Belittle them at your peril, Jimmy from Nebraska.
If you still aren't convinced, maybe we should look at the worst educated state in the US Mississippi
Up until this point, I thought maybe you were one of those Leftists who don’t use caps. Some kind of nod to egalitarianism, or something like that. But, alas, now you decide to start using them. Anyway, let’s fix that second sentence by adding a word so that it makes sense. “Looks like this honor belongs to the great state of Mississippi
On the substance: Indeed, the US Chamber of Commerce ranks Mississippi last of the 50 states on their Education Report Card. Know who is ranked 51st? Haha! Not a state, but perhaps the most urban place possible - the District of Columbia. This is a place where 87% of the vote goes to Democrats. Another company ranks states by "smartness." Mississippi is not last there. MS is 47th, but, in the bottom 5: Alaska, California, Nevada, Arizona. 1 purple, 1 blue, and 3 red. They don't rank DC, but let's assume, safely, that it would probably be in the bottom 6, easily.
Looks like it's been a red state during every presidential election for the past 60 years. I suppose that could be a coincidence that has nothing to do with the education level of the registered voters. Well maybe the rest of the uneducated South can provide answers than, oh wait.
Then. Not than, then. The "oh wait" doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
On the substance: You are not even right on your history. Turns out MS has a very interesting history in presidential elections. Maybe if you did any research, you'd know this. MS voted for these non-Republicans since 1948: Strom Thurmond in 1948 (a Dixiecrat), Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, unpledged electors in 1960 (eventually, the voted for Harry Byrd), George Wallace in 1968, and Carter in 1976. Certainly the victories there for Thurmond and Wallace were largely due to racial politics, but voting for Carter and Stevenson (twice!) sure don't help your argument.
Maybe you meant the last 30 years.
On the substance: You are not even right on your history. Turns out MS has a very interesting history in presidential elections. Maybe if you did any research, you'd know this. MS voted for these non-Republicans since 1948: Strom Thurmond in 1948 (a Dixiecrat), Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, unpledged electors in 1960 (eventually, the voted for Harry Byrd), George Wallace in 1968, and Carter in 1976. Certainly the victories there for Thurmond and Wallace were largely due to racial politics, but voting for Carter and Stevenson (twice!) sure don't help your argument.
Maybe you meant the last 30 years.
And don't tell me Reaganomics made
Normally, the beginning of sentences with “and” is considered bad form, but, I like doing it, too. Definitely ok in blogging. UPDATE: His name was Ronald Reagan, not Reagon. So, it's usually called Reaganomics. Oops, you had this right.
On the substance: I ask you, if not Reaganomics, what then caused the 8 years of uninterrupted growth from 1982-1990? Ok, I'll answer for you. Actually, it was Reaganomics, in concert with monetary policy at the Fed which defeated inflation and brought interest rates under control from the disastrous Carter years. Reagan's tax cuts, most certainly did make the American economy thrive for 8 years. Created 21 million new jobs and saw tax receipts double. All this while defeating the Soviets. Impressive feats.
On the substance: I ask you, if not Reaganomics, what then caused the 8 years of uninterrupted growth from 1982-1990? Ok, I'll answer for you. Actually, it was Reaganomics, in concert with monetary policy at the Fed which defeated inflation and brought interest rates under control from the disastrous Carter years. Reagan's tax cuts, most certainly did make the American economy thrive for 8 years. Created 21 million new jobs and saw tax receipts double. All this while defeating the Soviets. Impressive feats.
If that were true, and the residuals of such a successful economic policy carrying through Bush's administration, Bush would have never lost the 92' election based on the economy being in the tank.
This sentence, while I understand what you are trying to say, is poorly worded and ineffective. Also, the apostrophe (when you lop off the first two digits of the year) goes before the 9, not after the 2.
On the substance: Unfortunately, the business cycle is not something Presidents control on their own. If that were so, wouldn't the current occupants of the WH (surely the smartest people ever!) have this whole mess turned around by now? Bush 1 lost because he was seen as out of touch (remember the scanner incident), he broke his "no new taxes" pledge, and Ross Perot siphoned off enough fiscal conservatives to give Bill Clinton a win with 43% of the vote. But, hey, ignore history at your peril. It helps my side when the Left refuses to deal with facts.
On the substance: Unfortunately, the business cycle is not something Presidents control on their own. If that were so, wouldn't the current occupants of the WH (surely the smartest people ever!) have this whole mess turned around by now? Bush 1 lost because he was seen as out of touch (remember the scanner incident), he broke his "no new taxes" pledge, and Ross Perot siphoned off enough fiscal conservatives to give Bill Clinton a win with 43% of the vote. But, hey, ignore history at your peril. It helps my side when the Left refuses to deal with facts.
You surely cannot argue there was any greater factor to the defeat with Bush's approval rating so high after the quick and affective removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait
This sentence could use some reconstruction. Maybe consider some commas to delineate your thoughts better. The word you were really looking for is “effective” not “affective.”
On the substance: I will agree that after Gulf War 1, to see Bush lose was pretty incredible, but, things can change quickly in politics. This is why we never can count Obama out. The economy is bigger than what a president can do alone and he can take credit for it when it does turnaround. Plus, with all his plans kicking in AFTER 2012, people won't see the affects of the really bad stuff until after the next election.
On the substance: I will agree that after Gulf War 1, to see Bush lose was pretty incredible, but, things can change quickly in politics. This is why we never can count Obama out. The economy is bigger than what a president can do alone and he can take credit for it when it does turnaround. Plus, with all his plans kicking in AFTER 2012, people won't see the affects of the really bad stuff until after the next election.
And oh yeah, the following president only oversaw the greatest period of economic growth the world has ever seen.
I like the “And” starter, but you need a comma after “And.”
On the substance: Bill Clinton, at the insistence of a Republican controlled Congress, kept marginal tax rates relatively low and actually lowered capital gains taxes (a very supply-side, i.e. Reaganesque tactic). He balanced the budget, and addressed welfare reform with Newt and the GOP. He was lucky enough to be president when the dot com bubble was forming (and lucky enough to be leaving when it burst) and much of the current run-up in real estate prices happened on his watch and was abetted by his policies. He was lucky health care reform failed. I'd give your left arm for a little Clintonite governing these days. Looks positively Reaganesque compared to what we have now.
On the substance: Bill Clinton, at the insistence of a Republican controlled Congress, kept marginal tax rates relatively low and actually lowered capital gains taxes (a very supply-side, i.e. Reaganesque tactic). He balanced the budget, and addressed welfare reform with Newt and the GOP. He was lucky enough to be president when the dot com bubble was forming (and lucky enough to be leaving when it burst) and much of the current run-up in real estate prices happened on his watch and was abetted by his policies. He was lucky health care reform failed. I'd give your left arm for a little Clintonite governing these days. Looks positively Reaganesque compared to what we have now.
But surely that had nothing to do with Clinton
Comma after “But” and this needs a semi-colon after policy, and it’s a question, right?
On the substance: Clinton's economic policy could be summed up thusly, "Do whatever it takes to re-elect me." If that meant getting in bed with Gingrich and balancing the budget and delivering tax cuts, and saying "The Era of Big Government is over," that's what he'd do. Like I said, I would trade the current WH occupant for Bill Clinton in a NY minute. Self preservation is a powerful motivator. Bill Clinton knew enough to understand what it took to keep himself popular (a good economy) and he did it. He was no true believer in the Statist agenda. I fear Obama is.
On the substance: Clinton's economic policy could be summed up thusly, "Do whatever it takes to re-elect me." If that meant getting in bed with Gingrich and balancing the budget and delivering tax cuts, and saying "The Era of Big Government is over," that's what he'd do. Like I said, I would trade the current WH occupant for Bill Clinton in a NY minute. Self preservation is a powerful motivator. Bill Clinton knew enough to understand what it took to keep himself popular (a good economy) and he did it. He was no true believer in the Statist agenda. I fear Obama is.
But you are great, that's unquestionable.
Comma after “But,” but, you are correct.
