TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Nov 5, 2008 13:56:25 GMT -5
You could say the same for Western Pennsylvania. John Murtha should be out on his ass right now. I don't argue that Murtha's remarks were stupid and he should pay for them, but if we're talking about bi-partisanship there is absolutely no equivalence between Murtha and Bachmann (probably the most partisan and useless member of Congress). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2008 14:45:24 GMT -5
10. Finally, a quick note to conservatives everywhere: do not concede the younger voting groups. I’m not necessarily talking only about the 18-30s, they will always skew liberal, that’s absolutely true, but there is no reason you need to keep taking the thumping you did last night in that group. And the 30-44 group should be much more balanced than it was this year. I have talked to many, many people in both of those groups in this election who can and will embrace conservative principles. Maybe not on traditional social issues, but certainly on the economy and foreign policy. Republicans need to redefine what's important to them as a party: if it's economy and foreign policy, they can and should grab some people. But the social policy stuff - which is clearly the bread and butter of much of the R base - is too much of a sticking point. If they cling to it, they'll continue to fail with young people. The Sarah Palin pick was a clear signal that they're still clinging. And be afraid, be very afraid...once those young Democrats get older, they'll rule the world and make sure that you don't even have a lawn anymore.  |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 5, 2008 14:51:24 GMT -5
10. Finally, a quick note to conservatives everywhere: do not concede the younger voting groups. I’m not necessarily talking only about the 18-30s, they will always skew liberal, that’s absolutely true, but there is no reason you need to keep taking the thumping you did last night in that group. And the 30-44 group should be much more balanced than it was this year. I have talked to many, many people in both of those groups in this election who can and will embrace conservative principles. Maybe not on traditional social issues, but certainly on the economy and foreign policy. Republicans need to redefine what's important to them as a party: if it's economy and foreign policy, they can and should grab some people. But the social policy stuff - which is clearly the bread and butter of much of the R base - is too much of a sticking point. If they cling to it, they'll continue to fail with young people. The Sarah Palin pick was a clear signal that they're still clinging. And be afraid, be very afraid...once those young Democrats get older, they'll rule the world and make sure that you don't even have a lawn anymore. I agree with this. When the Republicans went from a party that identified itself as fiscal conservatives in favor of a strong nat'l defense that was also socially conservative to one that was socially conservative party with some fiscal conservative thrown in was when they got in trouble. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 5, 2008 14:56:08 GMT -5
You could say the same for Western Pennsylvania. John Murtha should be out on his ass right now. I don't argue that Murtha's remarks were stupid and he should pay for them, but if we're talking about bi-partisanship there is absolutely no equivalence between Murtha and Bachmann (probably the most partisan and useless member of Congress). I wasn't talking about bi-partisanship. I was talking about the fact that John Murtha should be out on his ass right now. Do you disagree? www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/murtha_combines_the_worst_of_b.html |
|
tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 816
|
Post by tgo on Nov 5, 2008 14:56:30 GMT -5
the GOP is far from dead or dying.
following 8 disasterous years of a president that is hugely unpopular even in his own party and a congress that when it was under GOP control could not accomplish anything of importance to its supporters and donors the GOP nominated a man that while respected was not liked by the GOP base due to many of his stands and achievements. on monday a hard core conservative newsletter i get was still debating whether to vote for mccain or not. meanwhile, the democrats nominate an intelligent and incredibly charismatic candidate who then runs what may go down as the most impressive campaign we have ever seen. this is certainly aided by the fact that the left has a huge chip on their shoulder against the bush administration and regardless of their candidate they would have been far more energized than they can be expected to be for years if not decades for a national election. not to mention the media fauning over obama and assuming him to be the next president for months now.
given all this, the democrats had huge amounts of money and had incredible turnout. of course they won, that has been a foregone conclusion for months, but i expected it to me more of a blowout. yes, the electoral blowout was there but it is almost always a blowout electorally, i think the national popular vote showed a 6% vote difference with all the GOP had going against it this year? not exactly the last gasp of a dying party. unfortunately, i worry that many in the GOP will notice this as well and not change their ways. if they do not change their ways quickly, they will start to gasp.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Nov 5, 2008 15:15:15 GMT -5
There's no attack on the "sanctity of marriage". The legal definition of marriage and the religious definition of marriage are separate things and should remain that way. I disagree. I'm not coming at it from a religious angle at all. I just think the issue would be so much easier to solve if we could just drop the semantics. Leave "marriage" alone, as it has been essentially forever. Recognize legal unions of some sort. What's the big deal? State marriage isn't marriage. i don't know why social conservatives care. Only church marriage is marriage. They should do away with all state marriage and call them all legal unions. If you call it something different then we have a whole separate but equal situation. If they're truly equal they should be called the same thing. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 5, 2008 15:15:29 GMT -5
I agree with this. When the Republicans went from a party that identified itself as fiscal conservatives in favor of a strong nat'l defense that was also socially conservative to one that was socially conservative party with some fiscal conservative thrown in was when they got in trouble. To be honest and objective about it, they went to a party that was socially conservative and threw the fiscal conservative part right out the window. Nothing about the Bush administration could be said to be fiscally conservative. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 5, 2008 15:25:44 GMT -5
Republicans need to redefine what's important to them as a party: if it's economy and foreign policy, they can and should grab some people. But the social policy stuff - which is clearly the bread and butter of much of the R base - is too much of a sticking point. If they cling to it, they'll continue to fail with young people. The Sarah Palin pick was a clear signal that they're still clinging. And be afraid, be very afraid...once those young Democrats get older, they'll rule the world and make sure that you don't even have a lawn anymore. Nah, once they get older, they'll be Republicans. But your greater point is a good one. For me, it really depends, concerning the whole social conservatism part. I would never want the Republican Party (BTW, I am not a member, though I almost always vote that way) or conservatives to stop championing the cause of life and being against abortion (not making every abortion illegal, but certainly curbing the standard that exists today). And no, I don't think the Republicans are out of touch with America on that. As for gay marriage, I'm more in the "whatever" category. For all my arguments with TC about Prop 8, my point was more that the court ruling was an overreach that was bound to come back and bite them in the ass. In reality, I'm more in line with HSB on that issue. You get married in a religious ceremony, you are married (and also have to file as a couple with your court clerk for government purposes). You get married anywhere else, you are in a civil union. I think there is a lot of room to come together on that one, but court actions like in California -- and yes, zealots on the other side of the issue -- prevent that sort of thing from happening. For the record, Barack Obama is against gay marriage. Just thought I'd point that out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2008 15:40:18 GMT -5
For the record, Barack Obama is against gay marriage. Just thought I'd point that out. And so is Joe Biden. The rhetoric on this issue drives me insane. Particularly all the nonsense about protecting the "sanctity of marriage"  Half of marriages end in divorce - if you really care about the sanctity of marriage, find some relationship counselors to deal with all the straight couples who don't have the first clue about sanctity of marriage. |
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 377
|
Post by mchoya on Nov 5, 2008 16:22:36 GMT -5
State marriage isn't marriage. i don't know why social conservatives care. Only church marriage is marriage. They should do away with all state marriage and call them all legal unions. If you call it something different then we have a whole separate but equal situation. If they're truly equal they should be called the same thing. Social conservatives care because they are social conservatives. It's an issue that is important to them, much like expanding healthcare is one to Democrats. Honestly, my take on gay marriage is long, complex and really can't fit onto a message board post, but a quick summation is as follows: the marriage paradigm for most of the history of human society was based upon economics, not love. The paradigm really doesn't change until the 1960s when no-fault divorce becomes legalized in California in addition to other states (throw in Loving v. Virginia for good measure also). The US tax code, established before the paradigm shift, is based upon giving preferential treatment to married families with children. The code is structured in this way because it gives incentives for having children, which is used as a means to boost population and create more labor. This population growth is good for society. Gay couples can't biologically fit into this tax code because they can't have children. This fact presents a problem when gay couples are talking about marriage, because it means they are still claiming marriage benefits (e.g. joint-filing) when those benefits were designed with the purpose of expanding the population- or at the very least sustaining it. So, what is the government to do? It can: A) Change the marriage paradigm in the tax code and start eliminating bonuses and breaks for having children. This change can be as simple as eliminating tax breaks or as radical as moving to a flat tax. Either way, once the economic incentive for families is gone, then there really isn't a true problem with gay marriage. B) Grant some sort of a civil union mish-mash that gives recognizes certain practices as being valid for gay couples as well as straight ones (e.g. next-of-kin, inheritance, adoption), but doesn't provide for economic benefits. (This would get struck down in about 30 seconds) C) Do nothing, let gay couples live in a limbo-status. Sure, certain practices will be made more difficult for gay couples, but they can easily be made available through legal means (living wills grant life partner visitation rights, regular wills grant next-of-kin property rights). I advocate option A. If gays want to get married, hooray for them. As long as everything is consensual, then I'm all for it. What people do in their bedroom is no one else's business. At the same time, balancing economic concerns is something that is important. But let's be honest here. Prop 8 kills any more attempts to make gay marriage an issue for quite some time. If it could pass in California, it could pass anywhere. I predict we won't see gay marriage as a relevant issue for the next 16 years. Furthermore, we won't see any progress made until people actually start debating the economics instead of trotting out the various studies that either claim that a one mother-one father family is the best family or a gay couple is just as good as a straight one. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 5, 2008 16:55:55 GMT -5
11. One thing I forgot to mention earlier. Public financing of a Presidential campaign is officially dead. No candidate from either party will give away such a huge advantage EVER again. (and yes, you'd better believe that Republicans can use the Dean/Obama model to raise huge amounts of money as well).
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 5, 2008 17:05:07 GMT -5
I disagree. I'm not coming at it from a religious angle at all. I just think the issue would be so much easier to solve if we could just drop the semantics. Leave "marriage" alone, as it has been essentially forever. Recognize legal unions of some sort. What's the big deal? State marriage isn't marriage. i don't know why social conservatives care. Only church marriage is marriage. They should do away with all state marriage and call them all legal unions. If you call it something different then we have a whole separate but equal situation. If they're truly equal they should be called the same thing. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. My point is that marriage is a recognized union between a man and a woman. It always has been, both in religious and non-religious circles. Some societies handle marriage differently. Some are arranged at birth. Some societies recognize multiple marriages. But none of that really matters. What is the big deal continuing to recognize what everyone has known and understood for ceturies? What is to be gained with trying to change what has been accepted forever? As for allowing official "civil unions" or whatever name anyone else wants to come up with, that's fine by me. What is the obsession with wanting to have it legally called a "marriage?" Does not a rose by any other name smell as sweet? Again, I think this would solve so many problems and would successfully put a relatively non-issue at the bottom of the list of importance, where it rightfully belongs. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 5, 2008 17:07:07 GMT -5
I'd say I understood the social conservative movement's point if the history of marriage had even a shred of sanctity. Marriage as defined by the social conservatives is a very modern concept, one that bears little ressemblance from the institution's origins. We are talking about a historic concept that allowed a woman to be passed as chattel from one family to the other, often against her will, so as to bind two families together economically and politically.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289 
|
Post by afirth on Nov 5, 2008 17:50:23 GMT -5
Prop 8 was also polling 60% NO before all of the donations from outside California (cough, every Mormon in Utah, cough) came rolling in. They've estimated that each side raised 74 million, and 70-80% of the money for Yes on Prop 8 came from outside California. Obviously we have free speech in this country and people can donate to whatever campaign in any state they want to, but I really do feel that if Prop 8 had truly been decided by Californians (with only California money/donations), it would not have passed. I feel a little bitter that people in Utah had so much impact on a proposition that in no way would have affected them. Yes on 8 also did a great job of distracting people from the actual issue at hand. Like running ads telling people that if we allow gay marriage, kindergarteners will be taught gay marriage in school, and churches will lose their tax exemptions, etc. All bogus arguments, well detailed in this article: www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,5926932.story. And the reason why the term "marriage" matters so much is because civil marriages and civil unions in California do NOT provide the same rights/benefits. If it were really possible to say that marriage could only be a religious term, and all state marriages would have to start being called "unions," that might be okay. But that's not the case in California. Right now, straight people can get civil marriages, and gay people can get civil unions. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. I understand people's point when they say, "why don't we just call ALL civil marriages "unions," but in reality I don't think that will ever happen. No state is going to start calling all of the state marriages between straight people "unions." Because whether people like it or not, marriage no longer has just a religious meaning. It has a state meaning as well, and I think it would be hard to take that away at this point. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 5, 2008 18:45:29 GMT -5
11. One thing I forgot to mention earlier. Public financing of a Presidential campaign is officially dead. No candidate from either party will give away such a huge advantage EVER again. (and yes, you'd better believe that Republicans can use the Dean/Obama model to raise huge amounts of money as well). No doubt. But while the people who set up the ground game, website, etc., all did a great job, the key was a candidate that people could honestly rally around. Like him or not, Obama excited people to the point of donating and becoming advocates. McCain didn't. The Republicans will be able to find a candidate who can, I'm sure. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Nov 5, 2008 18:56:04 GMT -5
As for the prop 8 in California -- which was essentially Ammendment 2 here in Florida -- I think it again doesn't get to the source of the conflict. Sure there are still plenty of evangelical Christians who are simply "against" homosexuality as they believe it to be wrong. But that isn't the same principle as protecting the sanctity of marriage. If they could divorce those two issues, then it would be much easier to reach an acceptable policy for everyone. There's no attack on the "sanctity of marriage". The legal definition of marriage and the religious definition of marriage are separate things and should remain that way. Right, marriages are in front of god. Signing a paper as a matter of law is a civil union regardless of who signs it. I've never gotten this. Why is it different not to allow two men or two women to enter into a legal arrangement as opposed to two Muslims for example? The latter would be unconstitutional in about two seconds. The former is somehow up for debate despite denying equal protection under the law to the parties involved. |
|
ichirohoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 535
|
Post by ichirohoya on Nov 5, 2008 19:02:09 GMT -5
Prop 8 was also polling 60% NO before all of the donations from outside California (cough, every Mormon in Utah, cough) came rolling in. They've estimated that each side raised 74 million, and 70-80% of the money for Yes on Prop 8 came from outside California. Obviously we have free speech in this country and people can donate to whatever campaign in any state they want to, but I really do feel that if Prop 8 had truly been decided by Californians (with only California money/donations), it would not have passed. I feel a little bitter that people in Utah had so much impact on a proposition that in no way would have affected them. Yes on 8 also did a great job of distracting people from the actual issue at hand. Like running ads telling people that if we allow gay marriage, kindergarteners will be taught gay marriage in school, and churches will lose their tax exemptions, etc. All bogus arguments, well detailed in this article: www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,5926932.story. And the reason why the term "marriage" matters so much is because civil marriages and civil unions in California do NOT provide the same rights/benefits. If it were really possible to say that marriage could only be a religious term, and all state marriages would have to start being called "unions," that might be okay. But that's not the case in California. Right now, straight people can get civil marriages, and gay people can get civil unions. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. I understand people's point when they say, "why don't we just call ALL civil marriages "unions," but in reality I don't think that will ever happen. No state is going to start calling all of the state marriages between straight people "unions." Because whether people like it or not, marriage no longer has just a religious meaning. It has a state meaning as well, and I think it would be hard to take that away at this point. And how many of your villainized Mormons from Utah voted in California yesterday? Also- before you start painting your analysis with too broad of a brush- please consider that the proposition 8 issue was something that was a huge challenge for alot of LDS people. It runs counter to the political beliefs of a good many Mormons. Myself included. Every Mormon in Utah DID NOT give money to Yes on 8. Alot did, certainly. As did alot of members of other religious congregations from across the state and across the country. I'd advise you to choose your words much more carefully when assigning blame for a political defeat. |
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 5, 2008 19:09:44 GMT -5
I know not every Mormon in Utah gave money for Yes on Prop 8 and I have Mormon friends who were against it too. Sorry for being too general. I was just trying to make the bigger point that it just seems so sad that most of the funding for it came from outside of California. Utah was by far the biggest donor, but yes, I do recognize that not all of them donated.
I don't assign all of the blame on non-CA donors either. Obviously, only Californians voted, and so Calfornians are responsible for it. It just really upsets me that other states had more of a financial impact on the "Yes on 8" position than California did. Although I understand that legally, it's free speech and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 5, 2008 19:11:54 GMT -5
And yes, Catholics were a big part behind the Yes on 8 vote as well (KOC being a significant donor), and as a Catholic, I am upset by that as well. Not trying to villainize any religious group in particular. Just, as a cousin of someone who just celebrated a wedding two weeks ago with his partner, I am still completely distraught by the results of that election and probably am not choosing my words very carefully.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 5, 2008 19:41:27 GMT -5
And yes, Catholics were a big part behind the Yes on 8 vote as well (KOC being a significant donor), and as a Catholic, I am upset by that as well. Not trying to villainize any religious group in particular. Just, as a cousin of someone who just celebrated a wedding two weeks ago with his partner, I am still completely distraught by the results of that election and probably am not choosing my words very carefully. Understand your personal feelings. What I do not understand is how two gay people being married has anything whatsoever to do with the "sanctity" of straight peoples marriages. Or that one straight couple's marriage has an effect...positive or negative... on the sanctity of some other straight couple's marriage. Seems to me the sanctity of someone's marriage is all about the two people involved and no one else. Reminds me of the "sanctity of life" arguments that were used to justify the United States Congress and the President of the United States getting involved with Terry Schiavo's family's very difficult end of life decisions they were trying to make with their medical team... until Tom Delay, Bill Frist and the boys got in the middle of it. |
|
Half of marriages end in divorce - if you really care about the sanctity of marriage, find some relationship counselors to deal with all the straight couples who don't have the first clue about sanctity of marriage.
