It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The revenge of Ned Flanders

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   


A friend of mine says this election was the revenge of Ned Flanders. You may know Flanders is a cheerful cartoon character in The Simpsons. His life revolves around the Bible and home-schooling his children, and he has a cheerful "hidey-ho, neighbour" response to anything Homer Simpson says.

A deeply religious streak has always run through the American electorate. And so has the literary archetype of the hypocrite. Everyone in this country knows about Elmer Gantry, from the 1927 novel by Sinclair Lewis.

He's a charmer, charismatic. But he is also as phoney as a wooden nickel, as the saying goes. Reverend Ted Haggard, leader of 30 million evangelicals, went almost overnight from preacher without a fault to Elmer Gantry for the mega-church age.

People in the bible belt are often stereotyped as being monolithic - just blindly following their leaders. But I think the stereotype is wrong. They voted Democratic in several presidential elections - helping both Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to become President.


Link

I couldnt resist using that title.
On a more serious note those who have preached there own version of morality have proven to be the most corrupt. The religious right has shown its true colours and they arent pretty to see.

The article itself is a very interesting read.




posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I really don't think that the "blue dogs" got into power because of a perception of hypocrisy or corruption. Especially amoung people who had been voting for the republicans for a long while, and now switched.
Recall that those same people would've voted in the republicans in 1994, and watched as they quickly became just as corrupt, inept, and do-nothing, as the people they were replacing. People know that there isn't much they can do about that.
The democrats took power through candidates that were essentially like the republicans, except that they were more willing to have major change, or completely leave, iraq. These blue dog congressmen were able to get the ned flanders types because they were different on the only thing that mattered, their stance on iraq.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Nygdan your comments make interesting reading.
Wont the Dems fall foul of there short term gains ?
Or put another name if the candidates only differ from the Republican party on Iraq how will the Dems form there own ID ?
Wont traditional Dem votes be alienated by the Republican clone ?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I really don't think that the "blue dogs" got into power because of a perception of hypocrisy or corruption. Especially amoung people who had been voting for the republicans for a long while, and now switched.


Typically, I would probably agree with you, but after today.

The Democrats voted Steny Hoyer as their new majority leader, distancing themselves from Jack Murtha. I think the tipping point was the Abscam video posted on YouTube. In the 26 year old video, FBI agents dressed as Arabs try to bribe the congressman. But, his reaction to the attempt is what killed him today.

I think corruption is the real dark horse issue here, because it's a lot more clear. It's tangible. It's black and white.

Everybody hates corruption. Nobody knows what to do on Iraq.

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the video myself, and I think electing Murtha would have sent the wrong message to the people. That being said, there seemed to be a concerted effort to sabotage Murtha, and I have no idea who did it.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
The Ted Haggard scandal had no impact on the election. Reporters have to write about something and the Haggard scandal had all the makings of good news stories, but evangelicals weren't swayed by one evangelist's sins and the irreligious had already made up their minds.


People in the bible belt are often stereotyped as being monolithic - just blindly following their leaders. But I think the stereotype is wrong. They voted Democratic in several presidential elections - helping both Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to become President.

news.bbc.co.uk...


The bible belt stereotype is dead wrong, because there is nothing monolithic about Christians when it comes to politics.

Christians come in all races and ethnicities and from all economic conditions. They work blue collar jobs, white collar jobs, no collar jobs, some are retired, some are on welfare, some are on disability and some are too rich to work.

In fact, the religious right is largely a figment of the leftists' collective imagination and the election pretty much proves that, so it is only natural that one preacher that most Christians never heard of having an illicit affair a week before the election is as good a fall guy as anyone could hope for.

Except for that, Haggard doesn't even belong in the article.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join