Over the past week, there has been a constant parade of political "experts" through the news networks to propose their recommendations to the Republican Party to renew the party. The suggestions have all had a familiar ring to them. The "intellectual" opinion is that the Republicans need to jettison their conservative values and ideals. They believe that conservatism is the reason behind McCain's defeat and the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. They completely disregard any of the other competing forces weighing on the minds of the voters in the past 2 elections.
It will come as no surprise, but I do not agree with the self-proclaimed experts. I believe that the major problem within the Republican Party is not that they are too conservative, but rather that they have neglected their responsibility in educating the voters on what they believe. Of course, then they have to actually govern as conservatives.
It is not enough to say that as a political party we believe in smaller government. The average voter does not care what that we are for a smaller government unless we explain what a smaller government means and why we believe it is the right choice. Some of my Christian friends have asked how I could be a conservative and a Christian at the same time. They believe that my conservative position on the role of government is in contradiction to Biblical teaching to take care of the poor. I believe that as a Christian we should take care of the poor and downtrodden, but I do not believe that it is the government's responsibility. I believe that the community at large is better at dealing with those in their own communities. Local churches give more food and aid to the homeless and the poor in their communities than the government could ever dream of helping. The sheer size of the bureaucracy of government makes it inefficient in helping the poor. Jesus did teach that we should help the poor, but I have never read in my Bible that as long as we pay our taxes than our responsibility to the poor is done.
We cannot simply say that we are pro-life and expect that the voters will simply accept it and be with us. The age-old axiom, "you are preaching to the choir" holds a lot of truth in this case. Claiming to be the Pro-life party will bring pro-life voters to you, but it does nothing to educate those who may not have a strong position either way. We need to explain why we are pro-life. We need to explain that the procedure known as partial-birth abortion is a horrific and completely unnecessary procedure. I do not know of any medical condition that would require a pre-term baby to be vaginally delivered to the point of leaving the baby partially in the birth canal, and then piercing the live baby's skull to suck the infant's brain out to kill the baby. If an expecting mother is in such a bad physical state that she will not survive a normal delivery, how is she protected by inducing labor only to partially deliver the baby as normal before killing it? We need to explain why we are against government funding for abortion and the readily available abortion on demand for any reason. We do not believe inconvenience is a feasible reason for ending a human life.
Campaigning on lower taxes is great, but it needs to be taken to the next level. We need to explain why we believe lower taxes for everyone is the best option for our economy and for our government. We need to educate the American public about taxes. We need to change the debate from a class envy debate to a debate over taxes themselves. Obama was elected claiming that 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut, but the problem is that roughly 40% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. We need to educate the public about who actually pays taxes and how much they do pay. The top 1% of income earners pays roughly 40% of taxes. We need stop sitting back and letting the Democrats spin a tax cut for all tax payers into an unfair tax cut for the rich. We need to educate the public why an across the board 2% rate cute for someone making $1 million is still a 2% rate cut. It is the same 2% cut that someone making $40,000.
The Republican Party does not need to move away from conservative values and ideals. We need to take a page out of the Reagan notebook and do what Reagan did. Ronald Reagan was known as the "Great Communicator" because of his ability to explain his conservative policies to the American public. We need to get back to taking our case directly to the people. This election has shown the media's affinity for liberal ideals and candidates. We need to sidestep the mainstream media and take our message to the public.
Troy Stouffer, Politics Correspondent:
Troy's Column "Cacoethes Scribendi", published every Friday to Gather Essentials: Politics, is a conservative look at the policies ad issues that affect all of us.
You can find all of Troy's columns at http://gather.com/cacoethesscribendi
Keep up with Troy's other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network -- just click here http://tds1024.gather.com/ and select the orange "Connect" button on the left-hand side of the page
You'll find Troy and other Politics Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at http://www.politics.gather.com/
Deo Gratias
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 114
Reagan presided over a massive expansion of government spending that doubled the national debt within a few years of his election. The long-term effects of his "borrow and spend" profligate spending are now being realized, as a tangible portion of the economic meltdown we are now experiencing.
Reagan's tax policies began a Republican trend, followed slavishly by both Bush 41 and 43, that have strangled the ability of the American middle class to keep their homes, send their kids to college, and maintain a reasonable standard of living. It is the Reagan/Republican policies that are key to turning this country into a nation of "haves" (a few percent at the top) and "have-nots" (the vast majority of working Americans.
It is insane not to recognize the role of "borrow and spend," "free trade"/overseas outsourcing, and anti-unionism, championed by Reagan and copied by the Bushes, have had on destroying the US economy. The Republicans are going to need to reject failed policies, and not re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, as you suggest, in order to emerge from the wilderness to become a viable force in the political future of the US.
Excellent article and well thought out positions! I don't think the Republican party nees to jettison its values and ideals. It does need to learn that not everyone shares those same values and ideals!
One simply cannot get away from the fact that this nation's voters have a long standing practice of preferring the middle of the road. That is why every candidate goes to the extremes to get the nomination and then, once nominated, moves quickly to the center!
I, like millions of others, don't want legislation telling me I must live my life according to someone else's church's values and ideals. If I can be confident that will not occur I can vote for a broad range of candidates on the other issues of the day. I lean conservative on most of these, just not to the extreme! On social issues, I am definitely in the progressive column. For a Republican candidate to get my vote, he or she must convince me that such legislating won't occur and get his signature.
Fear is the single biggest factor in influencing voters. And if they are afraid of a candidate, they won't vote for him or her. This election, Sarah Palin induced great fear in all but the radical right wing. John did not until he selected Sarah. Obama's cool, positive and calm steadiness was perceived by many as more to the center and less radical than McCain and Palin. Picking Palin, McCain played into the hands of Obama more than he could realize.
I hope to see the Republican party come back and be the strong, open party they once were. But they must loose the grip of the right wing religious fanatics who now seem to own the party.
I know you seem to feel that the party was insufficiently conservative but it is a matter of where you place your conservatism. And the social agenda of the religious right being the dominant factor in the party will drive off many otherwise conservative voters. We all feel that the religious right will enact legislation telling us to live according to their religion! That is frightening.
It was not conservatism that drove me away from the Republican Party. It was their religious right wing base that did that. Neo-cons=false conservatives.
Whenever they got into office, they expand government, and debt, and legislate their ideas of morality for the rest of us. Frightening is putting it lightly.
If I vote for any Republican in the future, it's Ron Paul.
His philosophy of what the proper role of government is, is far superior to Ronald Reagan.
Just want to emphasize that everyone in this country should be "getting back to basics." We are all in this thing together and unless we pull together, this country will not see much progress. We can't wait for one man to do it for us. It takes all of us for things to change. Each one of us needs to look in the mirror and say, "For things to change, I've got to change." No more whining, complaining or sitting around playing video games on the bosses' time. No one can do it for us. We've all got to get back to work, and we've got to stop sending all our money to China. China certainly has enough people of its own to buy the shoddy merchandise produced there. We've got to start spending our money at home. Support enterprises in our communities. Build our own little businesses which can help create wealth and circulate wealth at home. No need to borrow at the bank. Just turn off the TV and use those two or three hours each evening to build a little business. For one thing, it's the best hedge against inflation that there is. Two or three hours a night, five or 6 nights a week, can produce a cash flow of about $40,000 a year, once we learn how to supply a product or service that is needed. I personally know people who sell that much on eBay, simply by cleaning out their garages, attics and closets, and by going to auctions and local thrift shops, finding bargains and re-selling these items to people who need and want them. This is going to be a bonanza e-Bay Christmas season for those savvy enough to sell what they've got on that site. Retail stores are closing but eBay is not closing. I know a guy who sold absolutely everything he owned on eBay a few Christmases ago. The only thing he had left in January was a bed to sleep on and a few clothes in his closet and a bunch of cash in his pocket! This fresh start enabled him to go into business for himself, and he has prospered ever since. i am quite sure he still is doing very well because he was the kind never to have illusions about where the money comes from. If each of us is willing to pull on our own bootstraps, we don't have to suffer. We, too, can prosper no matter what the business climate. To quote my maternal grandmother who lived through the depression of the 1930's, "We didn't have any money, but we sure weren't poor!"
Excellent observations and extremely accurate!
Dave, I agree that government did grow under Reagan. If you have ever read anything on Reagan you will see that he was not for the massive growth of government and spending. I do see that as one of the failures of his tenure, but you cannot argue with the fact that tax revenues grew after his tax cuts. The economy grew because of his tax cuts. Reagan can be blamed for some the growth of government, but let's not forget who was in control of Congress at the time as well. My titel of getting back to Reagan basics was to point out that Reagan took his case to the people. That is what I believe that conservative Republicans need to do now.
James, I agree that many Americans do not agree with my positions. I believe that the conservatives need to explain why they believe what they believe so that those who don't believe what we believe will actually have all of the information to better make a decision. We have to stop letting others define who we are as conservatives and take control of our own political destinies.
I have been listening for YEARS to the same old tired yarns about "conservative" goals and beliefs. Yet each and every time you guys hold the reigns of power disaster follows. It's a historical promise. Face it: Dubya is the TRUE conservative, the crowning creation of conservatism from Newt and Ronnie. I get amazed how you guys can suddenly disown Dubya and his policies when you supported them with mind, body and spirit. Now, in failure, it isn't "conservatism" at fault, it's the individual conservatives that are not pure and conservative enough?? Think there could be a Pres more free market than Bush? Could there be a Pres that tilts the entire machinery of government MORE toward conservative ideology? Every facet of the Exec branch has been politicized beyond recongition and viable function toward "conservative" ends. Can you think of other ways to corrupt the nation MORE toward conservatism than Bush and the neo-cons?? They are remarkable bastards, one and all, that is for certain. But it is the philosophy itself that is at fault.
All but a handful need to be sent packing, and replaced with elected officials that listen to, and vote according to their constituency. That's their job, according to the Constitution.
They are NOT our leaders. They are supposed to represent OUR voice.
They are not the decision makers, they are to take their orders from us.
The conservatives constantly preach less government: for the majority..only for the selected elite themselves....we have proof of that right now with the bailout and hedge fund managers...
The conservatives spend money and its " an investment"
The liberals spend money and its considered "risky and dangerous.
"Ronald Reagan was known as the "Great Communicator" because of his ability to explain his conservative policies to the American public." Duh - HE WAS A MOVIE STAR A GREAT ONE AT THE TIME, AND PLAYED THE ROLE AND CHARACTER EXACTLY THE WAY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WANTED HIM TO.
We need to teach and explain to conservatives what "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" is - it is very simple...it is EXACTLY what it says it is.....Pro Choice is Freedom of Choice.
The conservatives manipulate their participant
The liberals reach out a hand and ask what they can do to help.
The conservatives do NOT LIKE inconvenience
The conservative decided they did not need a "legal reason for ending a human life when they decided to occupy Iraq...even tho there were no Iraq's flying any of the airplanes that flew in the 9/11 attack."
The conservatives have a mind set all their own...I just do not agree with them.
My statement was poorly worded...and impolite, and for that I apologize...two glasses of wine before dinner sometimes cause me to make impulsive remarks.
What I should have said is that using partial birth abortions...which NOBODY approves of except in dire circumstances, like saving the mother's life...to justify a blanket opposition to abortion is a tactic that is often used by anti-abortionists. In fact, only 0.17% of all abortions fall in this category, and some of those are for fetuses that are already dead or have hydroencephalus that increases the skull size so much that it must be deflated before it can pass. In these cases IDX is preferable to Caesarian because it does not require surgery. You follow your graphic description of IDX with this:
This has NOTHING to do with your horror story, which is just used as a tactic to raise the emotional level so that you can get to the REAL point...opposition to abortion in ANY trimester.
I don't object to your opposition to abortion...that is your opinion. I have a different opinion. I have no right to tell you that your wife should have an abortion...and you have no right to tell mine that she can't. chacun a son gout
The difference is...you want to IMPOSE your opinion on me.
Excellent and comprehensive explanation! I've learned from it.
Now we, all of us, have a President that is a democrat. Like it or not and approve of his plans or not he will change what Bush did. Given that this war has lasted since the fall of the twin towers did not help but it showed that given the stomping in Gulf War 1, the public like short go for the throat wars over a long one. I am for our troops and if I were not an old man with epilepsy, I would go in a minute but I can't. Mr. Bush told the nation that he would chase the Taliban and the Al Qaeda element wherever it went and he did just that but this nation has a short memory and they didn't remember they wanted the same thing but politics took over and shortly the democrats divided and conquered. The Republican party needs to do likewise, divide the democrats after Obama can't get things done and seize the moment. Otherwise, we will be looking at Obama or Billory for another four years until the Republicans get their head and butt wired together. God bless this great land, this America. Semper Fi and good bye. God bless you all.
Donna, the liberals reach out a hand and ask what they can do to help? The Fannie and Freddie debacle is a prime example where the liberals reach out a hand to get rich off of the backs of those they were promising to help. The executives at Fannie and Freddie inflated their numbers to get huge bonuses and then left to let the whole house of cards come crashing down. When it was brought up several times over the last few years that Congress needed to act before they house came down, Democrats like Barney Frank praised Fannie and Freddie for their work and said that nothing needed to be done. Conservatism is not perfect, but don't set up liberalism as some perfect utopia when it has shown the complete opposite results.
Bert, thank you for clarifying your previous statement. I still do not see how the mother's life is not in just as much danger during a partial birth abortion as she would be if they let her completely deliver a baby. My use of the procedure was to provide an example and I obviously used a poor transition into my main statement.
It was not just the Conservatives yelling, "NO", to Bush, and to Congress and the Senate. It was a solid 98% of the PEOPLE from all sides, and no one save Ron Paul, and I think a couple more listened to their constituents.
The rest completely ignored the People! These...have got to go!
Let me try to explain this one to you. My niece was pregnant and she and her husband wanted that baby seriously, it was their first. Late in the pregnancy she started having trouble and wound up in bed in the hospital. After much testing, etc., the doctors ascertained that the problem was the baby had no kidneys.
At this point there were two options, abort the baby or let both of them die. The risk to the mother was more than a risk, it was a certainty. Having good sense they aborted the baby and the mother survived to have two children after that.
That is why it is sometimes very much more risk to the mother to let it go to term and her deliver the baby. My niece would have been dead before the baby delivered and the baby was destined to die in any case. This may be an unusual case but terminating pregnancies in the last trimester is a rare process in itself and is frequently for the health and life of the mother in similar instances. I hope this helps you understand why it is sometimes necessary to terminate a pregnancy late term before giving birth.
After 4 years of the Carter Administration America was welcoming Reagan to save them from the left wing mess they suffered through. The media still couldn't believe that the US electorate could have voted Reagan in twice! The moderate Republicans such as Haige, Rockefeller, and Ford, couldn't believe it either!
America will never be "united". We are not "united" with the Obama victory. The left won. Now they have to rule. It's a wait and see game.
We are seeing America finally questioning all these "bailout games". Pressure on their current elected officials stalled the car industry handout. Bloomberg news is suing the Federal Reserve because the Fed doesn't want to release names and companies of who got bailout money. It's already starting to stink and Obama isn't president yet.
What do you mean...FINALLY???
""""It was not just the Conservatives yelling, "NO", to Bush, and to Congress and the Senate. It was a solid 98% of the PEOPLE from all sides, and no one save Ron Paul, and I think a couple more listened to their constituents.
The rest completely ignored the People! These...have got to go""""!
We didn't elect Obama or anyone else to "rule" as you put it. We elected them to govern and there is a difference.
As I watched this campaign, I kept thinking one thing. The liberals were all for change. But the conservatives offer hope.
The big difference, I think, is that. Conservatives still believe in the American dream. They understand that big business must not be over taxes, lest they be forced to move to more business friendly countries. But they also know that their neighbor down the street might be working on inventing a gadget in his garage that will propel him to becoming one of the "rich" in the next year or two. And they don't want to over burden that neighbor with taxes when he has worked so hard.
Conservatives understand that taking care of one's neighbor should be something that neighbors do, not a government sitting in Washington, DC.
They also understand that in areas where abortion has been more closely governed, the number of abortions has declined. And where abstinence education and more closely governed abortions have gone hand-in-hand, the decreases have been greater. (Abstinence education alone has not done that.)
The job for conservatives is a big one, if they are to communicate more effectively what it means to be a conservative.
I've heard the commentators too, saying that we have to be less conservative. The polls and election results did not say that. They did say that the public doesn't understand.
They all, save a few like Ron Paul need to be sent packing. We are being choked to death on the feeding of sound bytes and jingle-likepolitical rhetoric.
We need to bite the bullet, be in it for the long haul, make ourselves as self-sufficient, and take our local communities back first, and starve that beast to death.
The manner in which you calmly and logically state you argument is something that we have rarely seen - either in past years or during this last election cycle. Perhaps this may be the root of the problem in the GOP getting their message out effectively.
I've always welcomed hearing the views of others, especially opposing views, as I use this as part of my decision-making process. My personality has always been that way. The Republican party has always brought some very good ideas to the table - from financial to social issues, that has always been one of their strengths - however, it seems as if the Party has problems with translating those issues to society as a whole and tends not to look at the ‘big picture’ aspect. Democrats and Independents tend to do look from that angle and excel more at reaching the ‘common’ people.
Republicans have grown to represent, or give the appearance of having the support of the affluent, corporate or military supporters. In times where the national or global consensus is that any current issue on the world stage that highlights such policies or ideas supported by the Party in a negative light or may be failing in its implementation, there appears to be a reticence in acknowledging failure and changing direction. This could possibly be due to an unwillingness to compromise and a stubbornness to listen to different points of view by some, but not indicative to the entire party.
I suppose that could apply to all political parties, but from listening to various media outlets, this is what I tend to see.
I, by no means, feel that the Republican Party is an evil entity, nor do I think all of their supporters share the same thoughts on all of their platforms. But the public doesn’t tend to hear from the more moderate side of the party and the conversations coming out of policy debates hasn’t always relied on the actual facts that or included all Americans. If we could hear from more Republicans such as yourself, perhaps that would be a good start.
As George S. Patton once said, ”If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.”
I've read quite a few of Troy's articles and he is always quite logical in his explanations. I often disagree with him in his conclusions but appreciate his logic and civility.
I find it odd that the very people who scream the loudest about someone telling them what to do - enthusiastically support telling other people what to do.
I guess it just comes down to whose religion is ruling the legislature.
As for morality, I have no problem not telling other what to do in private, as long as they don't tell me that I have to pay for what they do in private.
These days, the cost of "what goes on in people's bedrooms" is topping $1 Trillion a year in federal, state, county, city taxes and tax-free charitable contribution.
Well said. No name calling. Well said.
If a woman gets an abortion, trust me...you won't get cancer.
My only objection to the social conservative position is that they generally want to legislate their opinions into law. They and you are certainly entitled to whatever opinions you feel are apt but since many social conservative positions are an extension of their religious beliefs, I do not want them thrust upon me and others who do not share them already. If we share a belief already, it is not necessary to legislate it!
Greg,
Smoking bans compared to many of the social religious desired regulations are fcomparing apples to oranges. What relationship has telling someone they cannot smoke in my presence got to do with telling someone they cannot have an abortion?
As far as I'm concerned the abortion thing should never have gone to the supreme court to start with. It is a private matter between a woman, her husband if there is one, her doctor and her clergyman if she so desires. The privacy of the doctor's office should prevail over any outsider's desire to control what is done in this privacy/ And that is what Rov V Wade was, a decision that the state did not have a legal interest in defying that privacy.
I disapprove of abortions except in limited instances, life or health of the mother, rape, incest, but don't feel I have a moral right to tell anyone else what they and their doctor might decide is needed for whatever reason. In fact, it is not my business to know if they did pr didn't! Smoking is not done in private and has no presumption of privacy when that smoke assails the nostrils of a non smoker who does not want he ill health effects.
How can you possibly equate these two?
Appreciate you comment/explanation, but a better comparison would be the fact that I don't give a hoot what the smoker does privately or at least away from me. And I smoked for twenty years and would have felt terrible about someone getting up and leaving because of my smoking. In fact I would have put out any cigarettes and refrained from smoking in their presence. But I have absolutely no business invading the privacy of the doctor's office to dictate what the woman and her doctor do. I should not even know, let alone dictate!
RUBBISH.
I quite agree on THIS, though, Troy; the fools who say that the "republican" Party (and I use the term loosely) needs to "moderate" engage in subterfuge...that Party must move to the Right, or FAIL.
Period.
Now about smoker's rights: The Congress has not made smoking illegal...even though tobacco contains a drug that is addictive. Nor have they banned alcohol, which in some cases is also an addictive drug. High cholesterol foods are also legal. Personal freedom includes the right to damage your body with some drugs and foods...although the law is inconsistent, prohibiting some drugs but not others. Eating a Big Mac is probably a lot more damaging to your health than smoking Mary Jane.
What the law does not do is give you the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body, any more than it gives you the right to tell me I can't eat a Big Mac.
No matter how hard anti-abortionists try to change these facts, they keep stubbornly coming back. Personal freedom, even though it has been undermined by the present White House occupant, is still an important part of our Constitutional rights. I hope I do not live to see the time when theocratic oppression takes those rights away from us.
It is not called a fetus to "justify" anything and to say that is disingenuous and misleading in the debate. A fetus has a lot to survive and withstand until they are born and become children. Sure they have the potential to become children and should not be taken lightly. As I've stated I do not believe in abortion for convenience. But do I have the right to dictate that to the mother? No way!
My niece was truly heartbroken when she had to abort her first baby because it had no kidneys. That fetus was clearly not a child, it was an accident of nature. This is not taken casually and is not a game of some kind.
Also, remember that at three weeks a fetus has no blood or heartbeat but it is still a fetus. It is a fetus and is hoped to become a baby. For me to dictate to a woman that she must wait and deliver a baby is a moral transgression of significant magnitude on my part, whether it be done by legislation I support or by more personal means. Conservative divorce themselves for this moral reality by using legislation to force their will on a woman.
Abortion foes have been fighting Roe vs. Wade since it was passed, Troy. It guarantees a uniform right to all citizens of the nation. I think a similar law should be passed legalizing same-sex marriage. Do you also oppose that?
It's the same problem...states can pass initiatives and make bad laws, laws that are Unconstitutional. We did it here in California in 2000. The CA Supremes shot it down. But the fanatics never give up. They did it again and won, but by a much smaller majority. This one will be shot down too, for the same reason. Next time, they try, it will fail. Just because a majority of the people in a state, or even the whole nation, want to impose a law on everybody else, it doesn't make it right. There is still that "inconvenient truth" called the Constitution. Fortunately, Obama will stop the packing of the Supreme Court with Right Wingers, so I think Roe is safe for awhile.
To Greg: I'll make a deal with you. No public money for abortions, and no public money for faith-based charities, which are an egregious violation of the separation of church and state. Tax exemptions for churches are an even more outrageous violation, but I know that I am singing into the wind on that one.
I wrote a piece on that a couple years ago. Here is the link.
Once we've demonized and criminalized abortion, how long before women with miscarriages end up on death row for not carrying them to term? How long before pregnancy Nazis raid the houses of pregnant women, checking them for coffee or cigarettes? Are women people, too, or just objects, a means to an end?
Now, as for intact D and X procedures--as Bert said, severely hydrocephalic fetuses cannot be delivered vaginally. The only alternative in such cases is a C-section, which is major abdominal surgery and carries much higher risks. Women happily assume those risks, of course, in the interest of a live baby, but if the result will be a dead baby anyway, our disgust with a particular procedure does not warrant the greater risk. (The risk is not only to the woman, by the way, but to her future pregnancies as well, as the uterine scar is not without potential consequences to those.)
Also, some women cannot be induced due to various risks (uterine rupture, for example). Again, the alternative is a C-section, carrying unnecessary risks and resulting in a uterine scar. (A D and E, in which the fetus is dismembered in the uterus, is also an alternative in this case, though not in the case of hydrocephalic fetuses. But I doubt the same people who want to ban one wouldn't want to ban the other.)
In case you really wanted to know.
It might not be the best word to describe our tendency to consider those we perceive to be our kind, like us, to be more deserving of moral consideration than those who are not our kind, but I can't think of a better one. (In-group bias, ethnocentrism, etc. are all too technical and specific to intraspecies phenomena.)
The best approach to win the confidence, the opinion of others is to demonstrate the worthiness of your method and the fulfillment of your promises. The Republican Party has varied from it's position...it's stated platform and the result is the worst eight year setback of progress in the building and maintenance of the American standard in recent and not so recent history.
You have blamed the deterioration of the Republican Party and the loss of Republican power on everything from the pro choice/ pro life debate to economic theory but you have failed to consider that the Republican Party has demonstrated a gross lack of character, lack of honesty, lack of direction, and a lack of tolerance and have done so with an arrogance of self righteousness seldom witnessed in a democratic society.
How can you be dismayed at the reluctance of the American public to accept more of the same? How can you expect America to endorse the doctrines of war, torture, lies, deceit, lost personal freedoms and privileges and how can you preach that the more conservative element within the Republican Party has simply been misunderstood?
WE, the MAJORITY of us understand perfectly the conservative effort and WE, the MAJORITY of us want to move away from that effort and those who are a part of that effort. Did you not notice Republicans endorsing Obama this election? Did you not wonder why? You have polluted the Republican Party to such a degree that for all practical purposes, the party no longer exists...at least not a a political party. The Republican Party has become more of a religious effort with self vested interests and a narrow minded, holier than thou tenet .
James,
Instead of putting forth the full straw man, you limit the debate to a straw foot. Social conservatives and liberal progressive disagree on a wide range of issues and both want to dictate what things people should and should no be allowed to do.
The progressive left has an extremely laissez faire attitude toward a range of moral issues: abortion, pornography, gay marriage, prostitution, promoting marriage among the unmarried, sex education, dorm arrangment in colleges.....and list goes on and on.
In a nutshell, social conservatives believe there should be more regulation on social behavior and social progressives disagree, they believe that ENRON sexual mores are just fine.
To put things into perspective - one out of every four American adults has some form of STD.
Self examination hurts Troy.....but an honest appraisal of self can be constructive. A blind appraisal of self only leads to more and deeper delusions.
What makes us human is our unique DNA. Something that forms at the instant of conception.
If it were "viability" that made us human, we would not join the species until sometime in our mid-teens. Logically, I would suppose quadriplegics and the mentally handicapped would also fail the "viability" standard of humanity.
Sounds like a place in history, few want to revisit.
People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.
The Obama campaign was tightly coordinated with both the Daily Kos and Moveon.Org. Obama personally visited both their offices. The Daily Kos in particular makes no effort to dampen the extreme hate and vitriol that flows from their pages. Remember the unchecked Daily Kos rumors about Sara Palin's Downs Syndrome child?
Yet the Obama campaign simply said "who us"" as this stuff spewed forth.
Has it become a tradition or habit we cannot break, and we will be burdoned with the continuation and expansion of this/these???
There are other choices out there.
So too, was the Dem willing to sacrifice Our Representative Republic by nominating a Marxist Candidate, to appease their Liberal/Socialist base. Your attempts to make one "appear" more injurious than the other is laughable.
Conservative Principles are the best thiing for a conservative Center-Right Country, but you love to ignore the point of the article; Bush is not, nor did he Govern, as a Conservative. And, running a Liberal was the most ignorant move the "republican" Party could have made.
And that is just what they did.
Tightly coordinated? Obama visited their offices....that is really tight Greg. (sarcasm)
But beyond any association or alleged coordination with any organization by the Obama staff....McCain did not need any one to speak for him or for Palin. McCain and Palin spoke for themselves...theirs as not the voice of others speaking in their behalf....it was direct and it was pointed and it came from THEIR mouths.
I have heard the idiotic replies of how Bush Jr.'s tax cuts failed. If you look at the facts, they worked until the Democrats took control of the Senate and House, that was when they actually started failing. Bush made a lot of mistakes, and bad moves, but he still did more good in his 8 years than Clinton, and Carter Combined.
Troy, I can very much agree with what you said here. I still prefer being a Moderate, in that it lets me decide what I choose to follow and not base anything on a particular party's thoughts. I prefer looking up facts and going where they lead.
Two things that hurt the Republicans this year about McCain, was McCain is not, nor ever has been a Maverik, in fact he has served the Libers almost as well as he has served the Conservatives, just like he has served the Democrats almost as well as he has served the Republicans. In other words, McCain has been a turn coat, and many Republicans did not like that in him. Another point is he is more of a follower than a leader, in that he will follow the most liked path rather than the best path when making a decission. These things hurt the Republicans severely.
They're supposed to vote according to their constituency!
They are Representatives!
What is best for this country is best decided by the voters in this country. If conservative principals were the best thing for this country...in the opinion of the voters...the voters would not have overwhelmingly rejected not only the Republican presidential/VP candidates, but also many Republican candidates running for state and local offices.
"Bush is not, nor did he Govern, as a Conservative. And, running a Liberal was the most ignorant move the "republican" Party could have made."
The Republican party did not "run" McCain for office...the Republican party voters made that choice....another reason to question the strength of the conservative right within the Republican voter base and therefore the assertion that "Conservative Principles are the best thing for a conservative Center-Right Country," ...a judgment or opinion that is not supported by the majority of Americans.
I was thinking about that "communist" word tossed around quite frequently, Peter, and it made me think of 1984 where the three big horrors described from communism were: loss of privacy, control of information (and deliberate misinformation), and the possibility that you could be arrested for next to nothing and incarcerated indefinitely with no legal recourse. Think of "newsspeak" and the erasing of clear data to indicate victories that never were. Think of emotional blackmail and using words that incite hatred and fear to manipulate people.
Now, I have to ask you, who does that really sound like, Bush or Obama? Duh.
Can you be more specific about the "more good"? Can you defend the "more good" of Bush even though Bush has the lowest approval rating since approval ratings have been tabulated? (In other words...you are in a narrow minority with this opinion)
Some people think and many people can learn. Maybe not as quickly as those of us who saw this crap coming would like, but they can see it. When jobs and banks fail, Hoover's message of a chicken in every pot ain't gonna cut it. You'd better be willing to fix it.
Let's face it, the only republican who could fix anything the past fifty years (and I hate to say it) was Nixon and he was a lying, self-serving sack of crap. The rest have been like children playing with toy soldiers at the country's expense. Recess is over. Time to get to work.
Republicans liked him to enough to select him to represent the Republican Party in this presidential election.
Dan R.
Speaks kinda loudly about the lack of unity, the lack of direction and the the lack of focus of the Republican Party. But in response to your statement...the heads of the party do not hold the power...the voters do...the party members do.
On one hand the Republicans have blamed the party heads for the loss of the election because they supported a candidate that was too liberal and on the other...the Republicans are blaming the voters because they voted in a more liberal manner.
Greg,
97% of our DNA is identical to a chimpanzee, but that is beside the point. If DNA were the only criteria for determining when a blob of protoplasm is a living, human person, then most women are mass murderers, because a very small percentage of fertilized eggs actually become babies. Most of them never attach to the uterus wall, attach in the wrong place, or are spontaneously aborted. At the very least, we should be holding memorial services for every single one of them! If you disagree and say that it isn't a baby until it attaches in the right place, then your DNA argument self destructs.
Who was the poor schmuck that had to examine all the people in the nation to establish that statistic? And no, it was you that defined it down to comparing abortion with smoking, not me. But you are correct, progressives believe in letting other people live their lives as they wish instead of controlling them to obey their religious mores. And that is exactly what a lot of social legislation desired by the extreme right is.
The right wing says they believe in freedom but that is only until someone does something of which they disapprove, even though it does not involve them! Right wingers hate regulation unless it is applied by the religious right on social issues.
Duh.
That's obvious to the point of redundancy, but it's not the question we need answered. Our nail clippings and every strand of our hair have our unique DNA, and other animals have their unique DNA, of course. The question is, what justifies the special moral consideration? "Our DNA is the best because we love ourselves" doesn't cut it for me. It seems to me that the only way to justify such moral consideration is to appeal to the inner world of an organism with a developed nervous system: the hopes and fears and capacity for happiness and suffering that we call consciousness or sentience. Without this property of some living creatures--chief among them, ourselves--the world would be blissfully free of moral conundrums.
If it were "viability" that made us human, we would not join the species until sometime in our mid-teens. Logically, I would suppose quadriplegics and the mentally handicapped would also fail the "viability" standard of humanity.
By your implied definition, practically none of us are viable. If we had to survive on our own, without the involvement of other humans, most of us would be dead within a few weeks. And that's not just a recent development due to our highly specialized technological society either: we humans, like our closest relatives, the chimps (and most of the great apes) are gregarious animals. It is in our nature to live in groups of cooperating (and competing) individuals, and not alone.
But of course you knew perfectly well that "viability" in the case of a fetus means the ability to stay alive outside of the womb, not the ability to change one's own diaper, earn a living, or qualify for a mortgage.
Sounds like a place in history few want to revisit.
That's a cheap shot, Greg, and hardly a bull's-eye at that. Ironically, the "place in history" you're likely referring to assigned moral status based on what they considered differences in DNA: abortion was strictly forbidden for Aryan women, while encouraged for "racial reasons". And both historically speaking and geographically speaking today, the societies with the most restrictive abortion policies do the least for the handicapped and the mentally ill.
With all due respect; if you believe that McCain wasn't ORDAINED by the RNC; and if you DON'T believe that Romney and Hunter were told to step the hell down because they were Conservatives; AND IF YOU HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT that they (GOP) moronically believed that a Liberal could win them the Presidency by kissing Liberal ass and the asses of Illegal Immigrants, then you are confused. And that was their goal.
I'll spell it out for you ONCE.
McCain did not "win" the nomination. He was ORDAINED. The GOP told the Conservative Base, the Strength of the Party, to go to Hell. The GOP expected the Illegal vote; McCain was the author of the Amnesty bill. The American People told him (and Kennedy) to go to Hell; but the "Party" gambled that the BASE would have no choice but to vote whomever was on the ticket. They underestimate the Conservative. We don't play that game. Of course, many in the BASE stayed home, and he did not get the Illegal vote, and lost. The "republican" party has two choices...learn that Leftists and entitlement fools will never vote for "republicans," or FAIL. They ran a Liberal in McCain, and lost.
I believe that they "got the message." Move to the Right, or be irrelevant.
But, please, hold on to that delusion. It will make it easier for future elections.
Believe it or not, I don't think this is healthy. I think a "balance of power" between the two parties, with a significant middle-ground overlap is best. It used to be that way, and the moderates in both parties worked together and did the necessary business of government. The rise of Reaganism changed all that. That was the beginning of "the great divide" that now separates the political and social philosophies of the two parties.
I am hopeful that Obama will start the long process of redeveloping that middle ground consensus. The prognosis is not good. Republican partisans are already publicly calling for a determined policy of obstructionism. Hopefully, some of the moderates will not listen.
Read my posts again, I never mentioned abortion until you brought it up.
That is not what I said James, I spoke of the progressive left using the power of government to impose its fundamentalism on the unbelievers.
Let's speak of science, logic and ethnics rather than religion.
When you speak of nail clippings and strands of hair, you are speaking of growth, not the formation of unique life. Growth is DNA making precise copies of itself to form cells, cartilage and hair. Interestingly the law is extremely strict about a person's control of even this extension of life. If someone cuts your hair without your explicit or implied permission - they are guilty of assault.
But let's get back to human life. There is only one form of DNA replication that creates a unique instance of a human life - and that is at the instant of conception. This process creates a new instance out of two existing instances. It is the essences if life and from an evolutionary biology perspective, it is the only purpose in life - forming new life from old.
Everything from there on in is the replication - copying - of that DNA.
If you cut hair - you do not end a life. If you cut off an arm - you do not end a life. An abortion ends a life.
It is as simple as that.
The next question is a legal and ethical one. The state has the responsibility to protect human life. The state also has a responsibility to protect privacy and belief.
We can argue among ourselves about when and where the right of privacy ends and the responsibility of the state begins to protect the life of an unborn child ---- but we cannot, like all too many progressive fundamentalists do, deny the humanity of a human life.
As certainly as Slim, Bert and Aniko are incapable, You cannot, because you are incapable of identifying one.
Bert, we are speaking of the progressive-left fundamentalism that mandates legislation to ban all smoking in buildings - even clubs where people are free to stay out of.
Using your logic of protecting people against the consequence of their freely chosen behavior - should we be closing down gay night clubs because of the heightened risk of AIDS?
Better yet shouldn't we be closing all night-clubs because of the risk of STD's?
I remember the refusal of the City Of Minneapolis to close down two gay meeting places during the height of the AIDS epidemic. Both of these establishments existed to provide gay men a place to have anonymous sex. The progressive-liberal community refused to use the power of the law to prevent death and disease then, they still don't ban these establishments now.
So why use the power of the law to ban smoking but not move against anonymous sex in gay night clubs?
The answer is simply, progressive theology has developed one set of values for sex, another for smoking.
It is purely a religious issue.
So, according to your theory, smokers should be allowed to smoke anywhere, and it's up to nonsmokers to stay away from them? I see a huge difference between inhaling the smoke from someone else's cigarette and sitting next to someone who has Aids. You have undoubtedly been in close proximity to many people with Aids...on trains, planes, buses, in crowds, etc. It is really, really hard to get Aids from someone without having sex with them, Greg. But inhaling second hand smoke is both irritating and dangerous.
This reminds me of an argument I have had with friends about travel to Africa. My wife and I have been there many times, but some people are afraid to go there because of the Aids threat. Here is what I tell them:
"When I get off the plane in Johannesburg, the first thing I do is NOT to go out on the street and find a hooker."
Your homophobia is apparent. Gay people are not all out seeking "anonymous sex," as you put it. The ones I know are as moral as you or me. You have been reading the Bible too much. Go out in the world and meet a few gays. They are just people, Greg.
If the conservative Base is the strength of the party...how could they, the strength of the party, be told to step aside? If they ARE the strength of the party I mean.
Basic number two was trickle down economics. Water trickles down hill. Money trickles UP the social class hierarchy. If you put more money in at the top it just stays there. The only way to keep the economy going is to put money in at the bottom. That money moves right on up the social class pyramid enriching everyone on the way to the top.
Reagan basic number three was invade tiny nations and give weapons to Islamic fundamentalists. Bush got carried away with that one. He picked too large a nation in Afgahnistan and followed up with a really big nation in Iraq. But he is arming the Iraqis so I guess he is okay on that one.
Reagan Basic number three was do illegal things helping anti-democratic governments and claiming ignorance of what was happening. Bush has mastered ignorance.
So since Bush has carried on the Reagan Basics why does the American electorate think he is doing such a bad job? Could it be that the Reagan Basics are what got us into this mess economically and politically?
Also, Troy, what percent of the nations privately owned assets does that top one percent own? If they own more than 40% of the assets aren't they getting more than their money's worth? Please check this out for us Troy and report your findings.