Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) talks about the Spector defection and the Republican party

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I happen to agree with many who say the Republicans must be more inclusive and not crawl into a far right wing shell. But I havent got a damned answer on how to do that. Moderate republicans suffered the most in the last two election cycles. How do you go moderate when you lose over and over to moderate democrats and your base is up in arms?

Quite simple really. The Democrat majority will ultimately make a mistake, or a series of mistakes, that will taint the moderate members of their own party...thereby opening the door for moderate Republicans to challenge them. It is a cycle that repeats itself every 8 to 10 years.

so you drool much???

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Genx87
So he called him out and acted unprofessionally and the Demint gave him an answer and this is news?

His answer isnt controversial at all. He admits republicans have gone too far and as a party needs to get back to small govt ideals. People around the country republican and democrat are getting fed up with the size and scope of our govt.

I happen to agree with many who say the Republicans must be more inclusive and not crawl into a far right wing shell. But I havent got a damned answer on how to do that. Moderate republicans suffered the most in the last two election cycles. How do you go moderate when you lose over and over to moderate democrats and your base is up in arms?

Yep, people don't want a milk-toast Republican. They want real leaders who will do what they say and have a track record of solid ideals. The idea that the GOP should water itself down more than it has over the last decade or so and become more D-lite is absurd.

I'll respond to both of you at the same time for convenience.

GenX, where did I say that this is in any way controversial? Also, the GOP hasn't been the party of "small govt ideals" in a few decades. Reagan increased the size of govt more than any president before him and the Bushes continued that track record. The GOP reps and sens were along for the ride all along. They pay good lip service to the ideal, but they sure as shit don't walk the walk.

I agree with your second paragraph though.

CAD, people demand their leaders to do what they say which is in direct contradiction with what the true leaders of the country (those pumping in hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign coffers) what. They have the pols get up there and make promise after promise and then make them look silly when they start pulling the strings to get them to do the opposite.

As for the "track record of solid ideals", you'll have to clarify that before I can truly comment. If you are talking about the ideals that include mandated discrimination, forcing religion on others and dictating how people should live their personal lives....I'll pass. But you can correct me if I'm wrong...

As for the "track record of solid ideals", you'll have to clarify that before I can truly comment. If you are talking about the ideals that include mandated discrimination, forcing religion on others and dictating how people should live their personal lives....I'll pass. But you can correct me if I'm wrong. <---- sounds very republican to me!!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yep, people don't want a milk-toast Republican. They want real leaders who will do what they say and have a track record of solid ideals. The idea that the GOP should water itself down more than it has over the last decade or so and become more D-lite is absurd.

Moderation on social issues for the GOP is inevitable. They are forced to carry out this sort of correction every so many years when society progresses, and I bet they will do it again in the not too distant future. Anyone who thinks that the GOP will still be against gay marriage in say... 20 years is living in a fantasy world.

By the way it's Milquetoast, not milk-toast. 😉 Watch that auto correct!

I think it will come pretty soon. Or at the very least a moderation of that stance from against it to agnostic. There are plenty of 20 and 30 something republicans who grew up under the PC veil who dont care about that topic as much as our parents do.

McCains daughter is a prime example of the social moderation the republican party should expect over the next 20-30 years.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Genx87
So he called him out and acted unprofessionally and the Demint gave him an answer and this is news?

His answer isnt controversial at all. He admits republicans have gone too far and as a party needs to get back to small govt ideals. People around the country republican and democrat are getting fed up with the size and scope of our govt.

I happen to agree with many who say the Republicans must be more inclusive and not crawl into a far right wing shell. But I havent got a damned answer on how to do that. Moderate republicans suffered the most in the last two election cycles. How do you go moderate when you lose over and over to moderate democrats and your base is up in arms?

Yep, people don't want a milk-toast Republican. They want real leaders who will do what they say and have a track record of solid ideals. The idea that the GOP should water itself down more than it has over the last decade or so and become more D-lite is absurd.

I'll respond to both of you at the same time for convenience.

GenX, where did I say that this is in any way controversial? Also, the GOP hasn't been the party of "small govt ideals" in a few decades. Reagan increased the size of govt more than any president before him and the Bushes continued that track record. The GOP reps and sens were along for the ride all along. They pay good lip service to the ideal, but they sure as shit don't walk the walk.

I agree with your second paragraph though.

CAD, people demand their leaders to do what they say which is in direct contradiction with what the true leaders of the country (those pumping in hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign coffers) what. They have the pols get up there and make promise after promise and then make them look silly when they start pulling the strings to get them to do the opposite.

As for the "track record of solid ideals", you'll have to clarify that before I can truly comment. If you are talking about the ideals that include mandated discrimination, forcing religion on others and dictating how people should live their personal lives....I'll pass. But you can correct me if I'm wrong.

<sigh> same old same old crap...

It doesn't matter WHAT the ideals are - just that people can see what the person says and weigh it against what they have done. THAT will show you what you need to know about the person and voters can accept it or pass. It has nothing to do with your little whining about those nasty religious people... - it has to do with ideological consistency.

Case in point - Romney. For whatever reason a large contingent of the GOP liked the guy but he's no different than BHO - a slippery snake oil salesman who says what he thinks people want to hear and is vague enough that most will fall for the BS. THOSE people are not leaders and should not be in positions of leadership as there is no trust that they won't change and do exactly the opposite of what they promised.

Obama and Romney are no different? L. O. L.

Did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not...or you're just being purposely obtuse.

Whats there to read?? You said it right here.... For whatever reason a large contingent of the GOP liked the guy but he's no different than BHO - sigh...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor


What you wrote is your opinion and completely wrong IMO. Sorry.

OMG!!! an opinion! whatever shall we all do in this forum! :roll:

I don't doubt people like you can't see how slimy BHO is and has been but to anyone not on their knees in front of BHO can see the similarities.

meh...continue on if you wish...

OMG!!! an opinion that misrepresents the truth! whatever shall we all do in this forum! :roll:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: trooper11

Originally posted by: Genx87

I happen to agree with many who say the Republicans must be more inclusive and not crawl into a far right wing shell. But I havent got a damned answer on how to do that. Moderate republicans suffered the most in the last two election cycles. How do you go moderate when you lose over and over to moderate democrats and your base is up in arms?

I agree with you on that point. The party can certainly have moderates and needs that kind of diversity, but its a fine line to find out how to have that large moderate base without sacrificing too many ideals in 'compromise'. that can be done, but not before many in the leadership (those that would be considered moderate or those considered right wing) are phased out for the next generation. They had thier chance to represent us and havent lived up to the promises made.

there needs to be a mix of 'right wing' and 'moderate' influences in the party to keep it healthy and ahead of the curve with ideas to fix the problems in our country.

I think you guys are getting closer to the answer for the Repubs.

IMO, what the Repub party leaders need to understand - and I mean both national and state leaders - is that different areas need different type candidates. Looking for a "one type of conservative' template for the nation as a whole is not the answer.

E.g., the area I live in is quite conservative socially, pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage is not popular. We now have Dems that have taken over from the Repubs as our Senate and House representatives, even so you won't hear these Dems advocating late-term abortions or gay marriage etc. They remain far more socially conservative then the Dem as a whole.

In other areas of the country there are fically conservative types who are more liberal socially etc. So having a Repub candidate who suports pro-abortion and gay-marriage rights is how to win. The Repub party must learn to accept this and welcome those types of Repub candidates into the 'big tent'. Having national and state party leaders supporting the more hard liners types is a problem.

The nation is divided on these issues, I don't necessarily see why the party can't be to some extent too, particularly on a regional/Congressional level. At the national level (President) let the primary be the contest among the party for the 'true' Republican.

The Dems have learned this and implementing it has given them the big majority IMO. And I have noted how they protected it. E.g., my rep (Heath Shuler) was allowed to vote against the stimulus package (something decidedly NOT popular in my district) which will surely help his re-election effort.

Fern

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So he called him out and acted unprofessionally and the Demint gave him an answer and this is news?

His answer isnt controversial at all. He admits republicans have gone too far and as a party needs to get back to small govt ideals. People around the country republican and democrat are getting fed up with the size and scope of our govt.

I happen to agree with many who say the Republicans must be more inclusive and not crawl into a far right wing shell. But I havent got a damned answer on how to do that. Moderate republicans suffered the most in the last two election cycles. How do you go moderate when you lose over and over to moderate democrats and your base is up in arms?

I'll give you a few places to start. Lay off the social stuff. You guys are pissing of too many people in the middle. Stop bashing gay people, get off the anti gay marriage thing, stop the "ban all abortion" talk, stop opposing federal funding embryonic stem cell research.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I was watching this live the other day but couldn't get around to posting it until this morning. The only links I could find to the video are rabid lefties lapping it up....but I thought it was post-worthy anyway.

Enjoy Sen. DeMint's "Big tent of freedom".

And then he explained his opinion in full detail :roll: What is the point of this thread? To hope that no one clicks on the link and plays the video and takes your word for it that another Republican is insane? I don't get it 😕

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Genx87
So he called him out and acted unprofessionally and the Demint gave him an answer and this is news?

His answer isnt controversial at all. He admits republicans have gone too far and as a party needs to get back to small govt ideals. People around the country republican and democrat are getting fed up with the size and scope of our govt.

I happen to agree with many who say the Republicans must be more inclusive and not crawl into a far right wing shell. But I havent got a damned answer on how to do that. Moderate republicans suffered the most in the last two election cycles. How do you go moderate when you lose over and over to moderate democrats and your base is up in arms?

Yep, people don't want a milk-toast Republican. They want real leaders who will do what they say and have a track record of solid ideals. The idea that the GOP should water itself down more than it has over the last decade or so and become more D-lite is absurd.

Fuck that, I want leaders who think for themselves and can see through the partisan bullshit.

 

[Lemon law]

Doc Savage Fan both asks and asserts, "LL...just curious...who do you think from the Dems side of the aisle is responsible for pushing the idea of all R's=bad and all D's=good? They sure did a good job."

Granted there are equally partisan democrats, but in general, the broader democratic party never lets their ideology take over the party, nor do the democrats lose sight of the fact, if the results are not good, then its not good governance.

As a result, all democrats do not lock step vote with their party, certainly an area where the GOP inter party discipline exceeds its democratic counterpart,
but it sure did not work for the GOP in the elections of 2006 and 2008.

Its may be all well and fine for the GOP to believe that as it drifts ever further to the right, democratic leftist excesses will drive the voter back into GOP hands, but very dangerous if there is a large growth in moderate democrats who will simply take over the places on the voting food chain that used to be occupied by moderate Republicans.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You can make a career of posting stupid things that politicians say...not sure why this is newsworthy. The only thing interesting here is how unprofessional the reporter acted...the callout was great...but the way he did it was really bad form. Me thinks his personal bias slip was showing big time.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Granted there are equally partisan democrats, but in general, the broader democratic party never lets their ideology take over the party, nor do the democrats lose sight of the fact, if the results are not good, then its not good governance.

But unfortunately the biggest offender in the Democratic Party has the position of Speaker of the House. If there were a moderate in that position, no doubt about it more people on the right would be willing to give this new administration a chance.

The Democratic Party does not have any unifying ideology, which has caused them to appear disorganized in decades past. "We want the government to help the people." But they all have a differing opinion on how they want government to be help the people. Just so happened they finally got a unifying ideology the past couple election cycles, a universal hatred of George W. Bush :roll:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Doc Savage Fan both asks and asserts, "LL...just curious...who do you think from the Dems side of the aisle is responsible for pushing the idea of all R's=bad and all D's=good? They sure did a good job."

Granted there are equally partisan democrats, but in general, the broader democratic party never lets their ideology take over the party, nor do the democrats lose sight of the fact, if the results are not good, then its not good governance.

As a result, all democrats do not lock step vote with their party, certainly an area where the GOP inter party discipline exceeds its democratic counterpart,
but it sure did not work for the GOP in the elections of 2006 and 2008.

Its may be all well and fine for the GOP to believe that as it drifts ever further to the right, democratic leftist excesses will drive the voter back into GOP hands, but very dangerous if there is a large growth in moderate democrats who will simply take over the places on the voting food chain that used to be occupied by moderate Republicans.

I don't see the Republicans drifting further to the right...why do you say this? But I do agree with you that leftist excesses will potentially be the Democrats undoing in future elections. The Republican party is in chaos right now and it's their own damn fault. But I see them eventually coming together...less influenced by the religious right...moderating on social issues and touting fiscal conservatism that 'we can believe in'.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: trooper11

Originally posted by: Genx87

I happen to agree with many who say the Republicans must be more inclusive and not crawl into a far right wing shell. But I havent got a damned answer on how to do that. Moderate republicans suffered the most in the last two election cycles. How do you go moderate when you lose over and over to moderate democrats and your base is up in arms?

I agree with you on that point. The party can certainly have moderates and needs that kind of diversity, but its a fine line to find out how to have that large moderate base without sacrificing too many ideals in 'compromise'. that can be done, but not before many in the leadership (those that would be considered moderate or those considered right wing) are phased out for the next generation. They had thier chance to represent us and havent lived up to the promises made.

there needs to be a mix of 'right wing' and 'moderate' influences in the party to keep it healthy and ahead of the curve with ideas to fix the problems in our country.

I think you guys are getting closer to the answer for the Repubs.

IMO, what the Repub party leaders need to understand - and I mean both national and state leaders - is that different areas need different type candidates. Looking for a "one type of conservative' template for the nation as a whole is not the answer.

E.g., the area I live in is quite conservative socially, pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage is not popular. We now have Dems that have taken over from the Repubs as our Senate and House representatives, even so you won't hear these Dems advocating late-term abortions or gay marriage etc. They remain far more socially conservative then the Dem as a whole.

In other areas of the country there are fically conservative types who are more liberal socially etc. So having a Repub candidate who suports pro-abortion and gay-marriage rights is how to win. The Repub party must learn to accept this and welcome those types of Repub candidates into the 'big tent'. Having national and state party leaders supporting the more hard liners types is a problem.

The nation is divided on these issues, I don't necessarily see why the party can't be to some extent too, particularly on a regional/Congressional level. At the national level (President) let the primary be the contest among the party for the 'true' Republican.

The Dems have learned this and implementing it has given them the big majority IMO. And I have noted how they protected it. E.g., my rep (Heath Shuler) was allowed to vote against the stimulus package (something decidedly NOT popular in my district) which will surely help his re-election effort.

Fern

That's it in a nutshell - and Shuler is a good example.

What's hard for folks to comprehend on a national basis (as an example) is a southern Dem like Shuler from deep in the Smoky Mtns is more closely aligned philosophically with 'western or northern' Republicans than so-called national Democrats.

What I really think will help the Cons (and the USA) is a more positive 'spin' - and less of (using Demint as an example) the flag-waving rah-rah stuff. News Flash: We all love America.

And (not to pound further on Demint) holding Pat Toomey up as representing 'mainstream America' is a joke. Last time I checked our country is still a diverse melting pot of various cultures, beliefs and opinions.

The 'Stimulus' could have been used in a way to gain more positive ground instead of painting it in negative terms simply for partisan political purposes.

$397 billion in tax cuts is a good thing. Supporting the cratering state and local budgets in times of economic crisis is a good thing. Reducing the overall package by $130 billion is a good thing. Cutting another $70-$100 billion would have made it even better as would loosening an onerous Federal mandate or 2.

I don't want the Blues to run roughshod over the Reds - each can better show a willingness to compromise and a greater reluctance to rant against the opposition in 20-second sound bites.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I don't see the Republicans drifting further to the right...why do you say this? But I do agree with you that leftist excesses will potentially be the Democrats undoing in future elections. The Republican party is in chaos right now and it's their own damn fault. But I see them eventually coming together...less influenced by the religious right...moderating on social issues and touting fiscal conservatism that 'we can believe in'.

IMO the only thing that would undo the (D)'s at this moment is if the economy doesn't pick up in 2010 or 2012.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I don't see the Republicans drifting further to the right...why do you say this? But I do agree with you that leftist excesses will potentially be the Democrats undoing in future elections. The Republican party is in chaos right now and it's their own damn fault. But I see them eventually coming together...less influenced by the religious right...moderating on social issues and touting fiscal conservatism that 'we can believe in'.

IMO the only thing that would undo the (D)'s at this moment is if the economy doesn't pick up in 2010 or 2012.

Maybe at some point the budget deficits will actually become an issue? Hey, I can always dream!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I don't see the Republicans drifting further to the right...why do you say this? But I do agree with you that leftist excesses will potentially be the Democrats undoing in future elections. The Republican party is in chaos right now and it's their own damn fault. But I see them eventually coming together...less influenced by the religious right...moderating on social issues and touting fiscal conservatism that 'we can believe in'.

IMO the only thing that would undo the (D)'s at this moment is if the economy doesn't pick up in 2010 or 2012.

What about if the economy picks up before the stimulus package spending gets into full swing? IMO the Dems would lose a lot of credibility if this happened.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I don't see the Republicans drifting further to the right...why do you say this? But I do agree with you that leftist excesses will potentially be the Democrats undoing in future elections. The Republican party is in chaos right now and it's their own damn fault. But I see them eventually coming together...less influenced by the religious right...moderating on social issues and touting fiscal conservatism that 'we can believe in'.

IMO the only thing that would undo the (D)'s at this moment is if the economy doesn't pick up in 2010 or 2012.

What about if the economy picks up before the stimulus package spending gets into full swing? IMO the Dems would lose a lot of credibility if this happened.

At that point, our savior would be the looming stimulus package and the confidence it brought to the market. It's really fairly ingenious what the Democrats have done. Despite their complete ineptitude in congress over the past couple years, they've managed to push 100% of the past blame onto Bush and the Republicans, any future ills will still be blamed on them as well, and any future success will belong to Obama and the Democrats.

I've got to give them credit, they played this well. I still think most of them are slimesucking scumbags, but they play the game of politics well.

Edit: I don't know whether the John Kerry campaign was a fortunate accident for the Democrats or whether it was all planned out that they would choose to run a buffoon against the incumbent buffoon, but Bush's second term made the current Democrat sweep possible. If Kerry were president, the collapse still would have happened but it would have been blamed on him instead and we'd be looking at a more even split in congress, and the presidency would have been up for grabs in 2008 as well.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I don't see the Republicans drifting further to the right...why do you say this? But I do agree with you that leftist excesses will potentially be the Democrats undoing in future elections. The Republican party is in chaos right now and it's their own damn fault. But I see them eventually coming together...less influenced by the religious right...moderating on social issues and touting fiscal conservatism that 'we can believe in'.

IMO the only thing that would undo the (D)'s at this moment is if the economy doesn't pick up in 2010 or 2012.

What about if the economy picks up before the stimulus package spending gets into full swing? IMO the Dems would lose a lot of credibility if this happened.

At that point, our savior would be the looming stimulus package and the confidence it brought to the market. It's really fairly ingenious what the Democrats have done. Despite their complete ineptitude in congress over the past couple years, they've managed to push 100% of the past blame onto Bush and the Republicans, any future ills will still be blamed on them as well, and any future success will belong to Obama and the Democrats.

I've got to give them credit, they played this well. I still think most of them are slimesucking scumbags, but they play the game of politics well.

Personally, I would expect the same from the Republicans if the shoe was on the other foot. Politics is a spin game and yes...the Dems are damn good at it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I don't see the Republicans drifting further to the right...why do you say this? But I do agree with you that leftist excesses will potentially be the Democrats undoing in future elections. The Republican party is in chaos right now and it's their own damn fault. But I see them eventually coming together...less influenced by the religious right...moderating on social issues and touting fiscal conservatism that 'we can believe in'.

IMO the only thing that would undo the (D)'s at this moment is if the economy doesn't pick up in 2010 or 2012.

Really?

I can think of a number of things that could be their undoing, first and foremost is actually implementing their policies.

1. Health care. Wanna screw with this? Really?

Unless you can magically give everyone more/better healthcare at no cost I predict big problems (and I don't believe in magic). This is either gonna be hella expensive or something will have to 'give' (like rationed HC). IMO, we're either gonna see huge deficits or reduced HC. Either way, that's big trouble.

2. Cap-n-trade. Yeah, go right ahead. Combine that tax with the eco- build nothing anywhere at all - stance (no nuke, no solar plants in the desert, no wind turbines, no drilling etc) and the high cost is gonna have people screaming (if not outright cause a recession).

3. Gay marriage. Looks mighty risky to me. Current news (See Chuck Todd and news on MSNBC) attributes Obama's and the Dems 2008 electoral gains on increased voting participation of Blacks and Hispanics, neither group supports gay marriage from what I can see. Would they refuse to show up in the next election if that passed?

4. Corruption. I have yet to see any example of how power failed to corrupt those in Washington DC. The Dems have a lot of power, so looks to me like a recipe for a lot of corruption.

(The above are exemples of them making for problems for themselves. The below are others causing problems.)

5. Terrorism. I suspect many would agree that any big terrorist attack would hurt any party in power. Possibly moreso with the Dems and their 'don't be mean to terrorists' approach.

6. International problems. Here again, the 'be nice' thing betternot be blamed for any big problem or they may pay. Many potential problems are exist, from Iran with nukes to NK getting a delivery system to pakistan falling to the Taliban. Might not be fair, but these (and other potential problems) could cause the Dems major electoral problems.

7. Border policy. It just keeps getting worse, drug gangs, kidnappings and murders spilling over to the US and now a possible pandemic. I don't see this de-escalating and I don't see amnesty (no matter how you label it) as being a popular solution.

8. The economy (as you point out).

Politics is a hazardous affair, you often take blame unfairly. Over the next 4 to 8 years, some crap, somewhere is gonna explode and if you're in power you usually take the blame.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern
3. Gay marriage. Looks mighty risky to me. Current news (See Chuck Todd and news on MSNBC) attributes Obama's and the Dems 2008 electoral gains on increased voting participation of Blacks and Hispanics, neither group supports gay marriage from what I can see. Would they refuse to show up in the next election if that passed?

Politics is a hazardous affair, you often take blame unfairly. Over the next 4 to 8 years, some crap, somewhere is gonna explode and if you're in power you usually take the blame.

Your larger point that the party in power takes the hit is only sometimes right. After 9/11 approval ratings skyrocketed for Bush, we didn't blame him for getting hit. Looking at how he dealt with the aftermath is why he's reviled now. If he hadn't pressed for Iraq after Afghanistan, he'd probably have finished out his term a fairly popular guy approval wise.

As to gay marriage, no. Conservatives are standing athwart history yelling stop, but this is a foregone concusion. The battle is over here. More nations are recognizing it, and it is not feasible for our country to have marriages performed on one state not recognized in another. As to blacks, they're not going anywhere with Obama running things, and this is a tiny issue compared to the bigger shit they put up with, so they're not going to turn Rep over this. Further, it's a generational divide, and under-30 voters accept gay marriage 2-1.

Remember the poll on interracial marriage? It took decades, but acceptance continued to rise over 50 years until it became ubiquitous. We do not look back kindly on those who said it would lead to the end of the family or country, and if you express that sentiment today, you'd have a hard time avoiding being labeled a bigot, and rightly so.

This ship has sailed. More and more conservatives are finding they don't want their party to focus on this issue because frankly it makes them feel ugly. Even if they don't approve, they don't want to be thought of as discriminatory, and that's what it is. Miss California is going to Washington to help "save marriage." By making divorce illegal? No, by lobbying to prevent 2 people who love each other from having guaranteed protected rights to hospital visitation, adoption, and property transfer.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern
3. Gay marriage. Looks mighty risky to me. Current news (See Chuck Todd and news on MSNBC) attributes Obama's and the Dems 2008 electoral gains on increased voting participation of Blacks and Hispanics, neither group supports gay marriage from what I can see. Would they refuse to show up in the next election if that passed?

Politics is a hazardous affair, you often take blame unfairly. Over the next 4 to 8 years, some crap, somewhere is gonna explode and if you're in power you usually take the blame.

Your larger point that the party in power takes the hit is only sometimes right. After 9/11 approval ratings skyrocketed for Bush, we didn't blame him for getting hit. Looking at how he dealt with the aftermath is why he's reviled now. If he hadn't pressed for Iraq after Afghanistan, he'd probably have finished out his term a fairly popular guy approval wise.

I don't think a recurrance of a major terror attack is going to be treated like the (original) 9-11 was. I never bought into the theory that another attack of that type during GWB reign would be beneficial to the Repubs, not at all.

Originally posted by: jonks
As to gay marriage, no. Conservatives are standing athwart history yelling stop, but this is a foregone concusion. The battle is over here. More nations are recognizing it, and it is not feasible for our country to have marriages performed on one state not recognized in another. As to blacks, they're not going anywhere with Obama running things, and this is a tiny issue compared to the bigger shit they put up with, so they're not going to turn Rep over this. Further, it's a generational divide, and under-30 voters accept gay marriage 2-1.

I'm not saying that the Blacks would turn Republican. As I said, recent news attributes the victory to larger than normal turnout among Blacks and Hispanics. The Dems could lose if those groups stayed home, they don't need to vote Repub for that to happen.

Fern

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: jonks
As to gay marriage, no. Conservatives are standing athwart history yelling stop, but this is a foregone concusion. The battle is over here. More nations are recognizing it, and it is not feasible for our country to have marriages performed on one state not recognized in another. As to blacks, they're not going anywhere with Obama running things, and this is a tiny issue compared to the bigger shit they put up with, so they're not going to turn Rep over this. Further, it's a generational divide, and under-30 voters accept gay marriage 2-1.

See, this is why we call people like you partisan hacks. Every time this has been taken to the polls, a significant percentage of conservatives, liberals, and independents vote against gay marriage. When you paint the picture of _only_ conservatives opposing gay marriage, you are just flat wrong.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: jonks
As to gay marriage, no. Conservatives are standing athwart history yelling stop, but this is a foregone concusion. The battle is over here. More nations are recognizing it, and it is not feasible for our country to have marriages performed on one state not recognized in another. As to blacks, they're not going anywhere with Obama running things, and this is a tiny issue compared to the bigger shit they put up with, so they're not going to turn Rep over this. Further, it's a generational divide, and under-30 voters accept gay marriage 2-1.

See, this is why we call people like you partisan hacks. Every time this has been taken to the polls, a significant percentage of conservatives, liberals, and independents vote against gay marriage. When you paint the picture of _only_ conservatives opposing gay marriage, you are just flat wrong.

To oppose gay marriage is to be a (social) conservative. It is not a liberal position. Many Democrats are not all that liberal.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: jonks
As to gay marriage, no. Conservatives are standing athwart history yelling stop, but this is a foregone concusion. The battle is over here. More nations are recognizing it, and it is not feasible for our country to have marriages performed on one state not recognized in another. Further, it's a generational divide, and under-30 voters accept gay marriage 2-1.

See, this is why we call people like you partisan hacks. Every time this has been taken to the polls, a significant percentage of conservatives, liberals, and independents vote against gay marriage. When you paint the picture of _only_ conservatives opposing gay marriage, you are just flat wrong.

Sigh. Yes, there are some liberals/dems, mostly over 65 {I'm not advocating we murder those people, just to be clear this time} who aren't on board with gay marriage. But the percentage difference between liberals and conservatives who approve of gay marriage is wider than the difference on abortion. Follow? Liberals and conservatives are closer on the issue of abortion than they are on gay marriage. I neither said that all conservatives are against gay marriage nor that all liberals are for it. I'm merely speaking about the general and majority position of the party and its platform.

On Prop 8, 82% of Reps voted Yes, and 64% of Dems voted No. Maybe you are unable to draw a general conclusion from those numbers, but that'd be your problem.