Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 19, 2008 12:21:40 GMT -5
Some on the religious right are opposing Michael Steele's campaign for the RNC chairmanship. Not because of his views on abortion (he's pro-life), but because he was part of the Republican Leadership Committee, a group that sought to unite conservatives on shared fiscal priorities while allowing for diversity on social issues. Ye gods.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 19, 2008 12:57:20 GMT -5
Whereas the Dems 8-10 years ago ran out of nationally appealing ideas (and strong candidates), I really think this "social conservative" versus "fiscal conservative/social moderate" conflict is more coalition-destroying than any problems the Dems faced in a long time. Personally, I think the social conservatives are a cancer on the party. But regardless of which side you support, I think you have to realize that this marriage isn't going to last. Like more red state marriages than blue, this one is destined to end in badly...likely after some kind of trailer park violence.
The last part is a sarcastic joke. I realize divorce happens everywhere, as does domestic violence, as do trailer parks. Just being sarcastic.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 19, 2008 13:32:28 GMT -5
Whereas the Dems 8-10 years ago ran out of nationally appealing ideas (and strong candidates), I really think this "social conservative" versus "fiscal conservative/social moderate" conflict is more coalition-destroying than any problems the Dems faced in a long time. Personally, I think the social conservatives are a cancer on the party. But regardless of which side you support, I think you have to realize that this marriage isn't going to last. Like more red state marriages than blue, this one is destined to end in badly...likely after some kind of trailer park violence. The last part is a sarcastic joke. I realize divorce happens everywhere, as does domestic violence, as do trailer parks. Just being sarcastic. I don't know if I fully agree with this. Sure, I have the most visceral reaction to the social conservatives, but they're really not the reason the GOP lost this year. If anything, the voters rebelled against the fiscal conservatives and the neo-cons. What's hurting the party is the economic collapse and the war, neither of which was the doing of the social conservatives. Not to say I agree with social conservatives at all, but in a political sense they've done relatively little to hurt the party.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Nov 19, 2008 13:59:02 GMT -5
Not to say I agree with social conservatives at all, but in a political sense they've done relatively little to hurt the party. Yep, especially since the social cons are the ones that go out and actually vote on election day despite getting virtually nothing in return, as opposed to the east coast elite repubs who whine and moan about Sarah Palin being a drag on the ticket and a cancer on the party. As for Michael Steele, he's got a few issues associated with his bid for the RNC chairmanship. First and foremost, it looks like the GOP is simply saying "hey America, look we have a black guy too" but ours doesn't even rise to the level of first-term U.S. Senator. Second, he IS fairly liberal, and not just on abortion, etc. (no real problems there, there are far more pro-choice Republicans in posititions of prominence than there are pro-life Democrats). If you followed his Senate bid a couple years ago though, you may recall an insane "off the record" conversation he had with Dana Milbank at the Post where he ranted and raved about how awful the GOP is. His defense? After a bit of, that he didn't really mean any of it, he was just trying to suck up to the media. Ugh. Personally, I think he's a decent choice (hey, he likes puppies, doesn't he?) and think that it would be good for him to become a mainstay of the Sunday morning talk show circuit, which as we all know, is a crucial steppingstone for becoming president
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 19, 2008 14:45:32 GMT -5
"Yep, especially since the social cons are the ones that go out and actually vote on election day despite getting virtually nothing in return, as opposed to the east coast elite repubs who whine and moan about Sarah Palin being a drag on the ticket and a cancer on the party."
Here's the problem with that approch; the country is going to have a lot fewer social conservatives in 10 and 20 and 30 years. Then, more even than now, "getting out the vote" among the base will not be enough to win a national election. So the base be damned, some of the embarassing traits of the base (which is overly superstitious and proudly ignorant of the rest of the world) are causing our party to shrink as the independents flock to the Democratic party, which means long term damage as opposed to just losing this time out.
We can't afford to be thowing more red meat to the base. The base is only going to get smaller and even against a black man with a paper thin resume and an arab middle name it wasn't enough. It will never be enough again- we have to GROW the base, not just get them out of their houses. That means toning the religious crap WAY down among other things. That means making an effort to be a bit more educated rather than scorning the educated as "elitists." When I heard that 20% of those in Texas actually thought Obama was muslim I almost wanted to vote for him because I don't want to be on the same side as that idiocy. Sarah Palin has no place in the party but to appeal to those morons who wouldn't vote for Obama "because he was muslim" and who didn't even know enough to be too embarassed to say that. For all the people who voted for mccain because Obama was black or fake-muslim- I don't want their votes. Take those votes away, Obama wins by a Reagan-esque 15% nationally easily. Screw the base. The base has made us a regional party.
Signed- one of those elite East coast republicans who threw my vote away at 615AM in NJ even as I held my nose when I saw the Palin part of the ticket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2008 15:15:27 GMT -5
I think the GOP would be well-served in the long term if more Republicans had your mindset, thebin.
As a Democrat, I'll take the status quo ;D
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 19, 2008 15:26:25 GMT -5
bin:
Can we cut out the idea that Republicans are the sole refuge of people who are idiots? You've seen, no doubt, the YouTube clip of the woman who thought Obama was going to pay off all her debts. If you only count the Democrat vote of those who made a logical, reasoned choice, then McCain wins. Big.
And, once again, knock it off on Palin, who's experienced on energy issues and who has more experience in government than Obama. Palin didn't say that she could see Russia from her house - that was Tina Fey.
And knock it off on the base. The East Coast stereotype of most Republicans is that they're a member of a 4,000-strong evangelical Christian church who want to expel all scientists from their own mini-theocracy, while taking occasional breaks to watch college football and shop at WalMart - oh, and they think that foreigners are evil. Moreover, the corollary is that the "future" of the Republican party has no strong opinions on social issues and doesn't really care about government spending. It's offensive, and it's a crock.
Two things from the election to remember. One is that the majority of Prop 8 yes voters were Democrats, not Republicans. The other thing is that voting for the bailout hammered Republicans in tight races. Saying that the base is the problem with the Republicans is wrong.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 19, 2008 15:46:07 GMT -5
And, once again, knock it off on Palin, who's experienced on energy issues and who has more experience in government than Obama. Palin didn't say that she could see Russia from her house - that was Tina Fey. Palin is not "experienced" on energy. She worked on the AK Oil and Gas Commission, but not for long and her energy policy as Governor so far consists of raising taxes on oil companies in AK, which gives Alaska the highest tax rate of oil production areas, coming up with a natural gas line plan that's highly unlikely to ever result in a natural gas line and giving Alaskans a $1200 or so to help with high energy costs, a number that was too high for Anchorage and way too low to help the rural areas / Interior.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 19, 2008 16:03:18 GMT -5
bin: Can we cut out the idea that Republicans are the sole refuge of people who are idiots? You've seen, no doubt, the YouTube clip of the woman who thought Obama was going to pay off all her debts. If you only count the Democrat vote of those who made a logical, reasoned choice, then McCain wins. Big. And, once again, knock it off on Palin, who's experienced on energy issues and who has more experience in government than Obama. Palin didn't say that she could see Russia from her house - that was Tina Fey. And knock it off on the base. The East Coast stereotype of most Republicans is that they're a member of a 4,000-strong evangelical Christian church who want to expel all scientists from their own mini-theocracy, while taking occasional breaks to watch college football and shop at WalMart - oh, and they think that foreigners are evil. Moreover, the corollary is that the "future" of the Republican party has no strong opinions on social issues and doesn't really care about government spending. It's offensive, and it's a crock. Two things from the election to remember. One is that the majority of Prop 8 yes voters were Democrats, not Republicans. The other thing is that voting for the bailout hammered Republicans in tight races. Saying that the base is the problem with the Republicans is wrong. I don't for one minute think the GOP is the home of the stupid voter. We just tend to let our inmates run our assylum now more than they do now. When the inmates ran their asylum- we crushed them at the polls. They learned. We need to re-learn that. I think as a party the GOP has been getting a little too comfortable with this "real America" crap which really means if you like French food and you care about how much we are hated around the world you are not a real American. Of course there are morons on the left who think identity politics will save them- it's just that they are background DEM voters, not the base that they put up front and center in their conventions for the most part. Both parties have morons. We have too many in high places. Obviously I don't want to eject the base from the party, we need their votes just like the Dems need all of their moron union voters. But the Dems have been aware for a long time that it's not good for them to run as a union/minority based party- even if that's where their numbers come from. The lesson of 2008 for the GOP will be to make sure we don't run as a southern and midwest christian party- even if that's where our base is.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 19, 2008 16:17:43 GMT -5
OK, first of all, I reject the premise of this thread. "Some anonymous emails" now constitutes opposition to Michael Steele as RNC chair by the social conservatives?
Blather, I say!
Second, I have a much longer post about the larger issue of social conservatism in the Republican Party, but that's going to have to wait for another time, since I can't seem to get my phone to stop ringing today (I'd really love my job if it weren't for the people, you know?).
For now, suffice it to say that Republicans and conservatives are fighting the worng battles when it comes to these issues. And I DON'T mean they are fighting about the wrong issues, I mean that they are making the wrong arguments about those issues.
EDIT: I have just checked around at some of my normal conservative haunts and have seen major league blowback to these "anonymous e-mails." Which stands to reason. Anaonymous e-mails are not what you do to oppose someone. Anonymous e-mails are what you do when you can't mount an opposition.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 19, 2008 16:26:09 GMT -5
Bin:
Good enough. I still think that you're wrong on real America (and that rosslynhoya is right - the base gets demonized too often and that people in NYC and Washington tend to be too full of themsleves).
But let's skip that. The real question is how to reinvent the party.
My vote? Fiscally conservative and morals-based. Not bailing out every corporation, prudent spending, etc. In other words, the Tom Coburn approach.
Plus the morals thing. It's important. Not necessarily the party of the Old Testament God, but essentially saying that morals matters in decisions related to foreign policy and towards issues like abortion and stem cell research. There's a strong current of relativism in the liberal model that I find distasteful, if not repugnant.
And that morals part is important. Both have an undercurrent of personal responsibility. And in elections two years that will be conducted in a poor economic climate under threats of more bailouts, I think that an "I'm responsible for my own success" approach will do well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2008 17:05:00 GMT -5
Plus the morals thing. It's important. Not necessarily the party of the Old Testament God, but essentially saying that morals matters in decisions related to foreign policy and towards issues like abortion and stem cell research. There's a strong current of relativism in the liberal model that I find distasteful, if not repugnant. If the Republican Party isn't allowed to be the exclusive domain of the stupid, then the Democratic Party isn't allowed to be the exclusive domain of repugnant moral relativism. Deal?
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 19, 2008 17:32:45 GMT -5
Plus the morals thing. It's important. Not necessarily the party of the Old Testament God, but essentially saying that morals matters in decisions related to foreign policy and towards issues like abortion and stem cell research. There's a strong current of relativism in the liberal model that I find distasteful, if not repugnant. If the Republican Party isn't allowed to be the exclusive domain of the stupid, then the Democratic Party isn't allowed to be the exclusive domain of repugnant moral relativism. Deal? Together we will bring this country into the dystopian future it so richly deserves!
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 19, 2008 17:46:55 GMT -5
Plus the morals thing. It's important. Not necessarily the party of the Old Testament God, but essentially saying that morals matters in decisions related to foreign policy and towards issues like abortion and stem cell research. There's a strong current of relativism in the liberal model that I find distasteful, if not repugnant. And that morals part is important. Both have an undercurrent of personal responsibility. And in elections two years that will be conducted in a poor economic climate under threats of more bailouts, I think that an "I'm responsible for my own success" approach will do well. How about the morality of protecting the environment? Feeding the hungry? Providing health care for the poor? Researching medical treatments for the crippled? Not engaging in arguably unnecessary preemptive military conflict? Moral relativism, eh?
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 19, 2008 18:54:54 GMT -5
With regards to the morals stuff, I wish the right-wing had a position which actually helped reduce the number of abortions. We've had a Republican president for 8 years and conservative Supreme Court appointments and Roe v. Wade STILL hasn't been overturned. It's quite possible that it never will.
So if right-wing Republicans are so anti-abortion, why can't they focus on reducing the number of abortions in other ways? Like promoting sex education instead of abstinence-only education. Or making it easier for poorer mothers to keep the baby through some sort of social assistance (since poor mothers are supposedly 4 times more likely to get abortions).
Maybe they will never go for the social spending because of their fiscal principles, but for God's sake, promoting abstinence-ONLY education doesn't seem to be the best way to avoid unwanted children/abortions.
|
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 376
|
Post by mchoya on Nov 19, 2008 19:19:55 GMT -5
With regards to the morals stuff, I wish the right-wing had a position which actually helped reduce the number of abortions. We've had a Republican president for 8 years and conservative Supreme Court appointments and Roe v. Wade STILL hasn't been overturned. It's quite possible that it never will. So if right-wing Republicans are so anti-abortion, why can't they focus on reducing the number of abortions in other ways? Like promoting sex education instead of abstinence-only education. Or making it easier for poorer mothers to keep the baby through some sort of social assistance (since poor mothers are supposedly 4 times more likely to get abortions). Maybe they will never go for the social spending because of their fiscal principles, but for God's sake, promoting abstinence-ONLY education doesn't seem to be the best way to avoid unwanted children/abortions. Here is what abstinence only sex ed consists of, according to Title V of the Social Security Act: - Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
- Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
- Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
- Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;
- Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
- Teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
- Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and
- Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
I don't see what the problem is in describing abstinence as the most effective way of preventing pregnancy and STIs because it is the best way to do so. I also don't see how any of these points conflict with teaching children about how contraceptives are used; which ones are effective and which ones are not (e.g. condoms yes, Editedbags no). Roe v. Wade will be overturned the day DC v. Heller is overturned. Also, the Cubs will win the World Series on the exact same day.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 19, 2008 19:30:17 GMT -5
I have NO problem with teaching abstinence as the better way to go and the most effective way to prevent pregnancy/STDs. However, the reality is that many students aren't being taught about contraception AT ALL. No matter what kind of sex education we institute, teenagers are still going to have sex and therefore I think the best sort of education would show that abstinence is the better way to go, but still teaches about contraceptives. Many proponents of abstinence education don't want contraception being taught at all because they think it will encourage teenagers to have more sex. But that's getting too off topic for this thread. All I was trying to say is that I think Republicans can still stick to their moral pro-life values but maybe rethink the way they're going about it.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 19, 2008 21:53:40 GMT -5
With regards to the morals stuff, I wish the right-wing had a position which actually helped reduce the number of abortions. We've had a Republican president for 8 years and conservative Supreme Court appointments and Roe v. Wade STILL hasn't been overturned. It's quite possible that it never will. So if right-wing Republicans are so anti-abortion, why can't they focus on reducing the number of abortions in other ways? Like promoting sex education instead of abstinence-only education. Or making it easier for poorer mothers to keep the baby through some sort of social assistance (since poor mothers are supposedly 4 times more likely to get abortions). Maybe they will never go for the social spending because of their fiscal principles, but for God's sake, promoting abstinence-ONLY education doesn't seem to be the best way to avoid unwanted children/abortions. I totally agree. I'd go so far as to say I'm pro-life (which has led to a number of exciting arguments with the vast majority of people I ever tell that to). But where we agree, and where I make the jump to a point they agree with is that until we get specific institutions and social attitudes in line w/ promoting having an unwanted child, I don't see how we can force a woman to do it. Where is the funding for anything that the woman may need in the process? Where is the functioning adoption agency? Where is the quality health care for 9 months? MOST IMPORTANTLY Where is the attitude of understanding and concern for the woman and the baby? All I ever see/hear is derision for young or poor mothers who do not want to have a child. We throw girls out of school. We question their morals. We reassess their role in the workplace. Can you 100% fault her for saying "Screw this, let's just abort"? There are a lot of things we as a society need to do to get our house in order before telling people what they HAVE to do with their own lives. Although admittedly a strained analogy, I think banning abortions before having the necessary institutions to deal with unwanted pregnancies would be like requiring people to drive electric cars before having the power grids, and then telling people that its their problem because they chose drive.
|
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 376
|
Post by mchoya on Nov 19, 2008 23:03:30 GMT -5
I totally agree. I'd go so far as to say I'm pro-life (which has led to a number of exciting arguments with the vast majority of people I ever tell that to). But where we agree, and where I make the jump to a point they agree with is that until we get specific institutions and social attitudes in line w/ promoting having an unwanted child, I don't see how we can force a woman to do it. Where is the funding for anything that the woman may need in the process? Where is the functioning adoption agency? Where is the quality health care for 9 months? MOST IMPORTANTLY Where is the attitude of understanding and concern for the woman and the baby? All I ever see/hear is derision for young or poor mothers who do not want to have a child. We throw girls out of school. We question their morals. We reassess their role in the workplace. Can you 100% fault her for saying "Screw this, let's just abort"? There are a lot of things we as a society need to do to get our house in order before telling people what they HAVE to do with their own lives. I don't think abortion ever will be banned because no one is going to want the pre-Roe days of seedy abortion clinics and people dying because women will still want to get abortions. In that regard, I subscribe to the "safe, legal, and rare" concept offered by Bill Clinton. More accurately, I'm pro-choice only in the sense that the choice is available to all people. That being said, I choose life and want others to do so also. In response to your questions, though: The funding for anything a woman may need in the process should come from two places: personal contributions for any health related concerns or charitable contributions. Religious groups and secular groups offer services to pregnant women that are unsure of what to do with an unwanted child. As far as functioning adoption agencies are concerned, I'm pretty sure that every state has a safe haven law that designates hospitals as a place to leave unwanted children and they will be taken in by the state until a home can be found for them. As far as medical care is concerned, according to the CDC, only 3.5% of pregnant women received "late or no [prenatal] care" in 2005. Clearly, there is room for improvement, but I don't see a crisis of prenatal care. And for your final question: Do you believe that society will change in such a way that there is "understanding and concern" for a woman having an unwanted child, especially a child out of wedlock? If you think that is going to happen, then you are not just proposing a change in American social norms, but human social norms since the beginning of time that have scorned women who became pregnant outside of marriage. I definitely believe that cultural mores are changing and people are beginning to accept certain practices, but I also think that it is a stretch to think that beliefs that date back several millennia could have been eradicated completely in the 35 years after Roe.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Nov 20, 2008 2:23:10 GMT -5
mr thebin, i remember fighting with you on the old board (its been at least 5-7 years now i think...we were fighting about the consequences of lewinsky v. iraq then!) and it is a pleasure to see you back again. i consider myself a liberal liberal, not a quilt of special interests democrat. i root for a sensible realignment of the repubs that articulate a message not shrouded in religion - its better for all involved. i dont want any part of dems running all three branches unchallenged and untempered. but wasnt romney the guy? an economic conservative business leader with a record of beings hands off on social issues? if im looking for an alternative huckabee or a huckabee disciple doesnt exactly keep me up at night. in any event good to see ya again thebin. i end up in hoboken every couple of weekends and owe you a beer.
|
|