Originally Posted by Donkey®
First, I was using YOUR approach to judge people as "political hacks". And it's also great that colleges are liberal havens until they write something you agree with then they are not partisan at all.
1. What exactly was "my" approach, other than to (1) cite a scholarly article by trained political scientists that seems to conclude the Republican Party is in trouble regarding its electoral future because (a) its core beliefs regarding government are seemingly less popular with the demographic groups seeing increases in their populations within the United States, and (b) whites, the GOP's core constituency, are increasingly becoming the minority; and (2) rebuke a nonscholarly hit-job by an opinion mag known for "hating" everything remotely right-of-center?
For someone who is always decrying the "haters" in our midst you sure seem to turn to them whenever they back your pov. Personally, I think your excuse that it was "my" approach you were supposedly mimicking is BS; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know RS
is a highly biased and partisan platform. I'd have had the same reaction if you linked to a NRO
column decrying the Virginia piece as manufactured and shortsighted because the NRO
is (you guessed it!) a partisan platform for partisan hacks. For you to try and play it off otherwise is beyond disingenuous.
2. I never said anything in this thread about the academy and its politics one way or the other. Hell, all you need to do is look at my profile to see I'd like work in the academy someday. Hence, if I thought the place was such a shit hole of junk-thought it'd likely be the last place I'd want to work. Indeed, the only problem with the alleged liberal bias of the university is that it manifests itself not in research, but in suppressing dissenting points of view and possibly denying those dissenters tenure.
Furthermore, for all I know this particular study they put out could
be slanted toward the Left, but I don't think you have to be a liberal or conservative to see the merits in what it is saying.
3. Lastly, I never said I agreed or disagreed with the merits of the piece. I simply said I thought it was interesting
. The Virginia piece's conclusion that "Republican leaders will soon face a difficult choice between reaching out to nonwhite voters or continuing to cater to their Party’s shrinking base" is a serious issue that reaches well beyond your needless and shortsighted spewing (to paraphrase) of "Their future doesn't matter because Republicans are obstructionists and suck!"
Besides, I am quite sure you had no problems when it was the Democrats who were obstructionists back during the days of the Bush administration when it came to things like judicial nominations, Bolten's nomination to the UN, etc. To act like the GOP has discovered out of thin air some new tool to make the majority's governing term as miserable as possible is laughable. Any honest thought on the subject on your part would lead you to conclude this is just a new chapter in the GOP building on what the Dems to did them while the GOP was the majority, which in turn was built on what the GOP did to the Dems the last time the Dems were in the majority, etc, on and on, Republic without end. It's literally nothing new and has been a staple of American politics since the Adams administration.
Honestly Donkey, to act so outraged because it's happening to your fearless leader now is, as you like to say, "faux rage."