UPDATE: Based on Michelle McIntyre's comment at #28 I have to revise and extend my original comments below. It would appear the alter-ego post in question was written by sometimes Sound Politics commenter and Reagan Wing contributor "Jefferson Paine." Therefore Doug Parris is not "the craziest person in two-legged pants." He can only fairly be described as an all-star member of that demographic, devoid of loftier titles.
Jefferson, however, is another matter. His gross misuse of the "Neo-con" label doesn't give him much credibility. Nor does him labeling Dave Reichert a "socialist" really do much to rally converts to his cause. And really, when Doug Parris of all people (per comment #7) has to edit your prose as being "too demeaning," then maybe, just maybe, your satire isn't quite what you intended.
If the Reagan Wing wants to poke fun at me I embrace that. Why I'm not quite sure, but I do. But for heaven's sake show us some quality barbs through the blogosphere. Make it good, people! You may even want to consider the good form of letting readers know who the actual satirist is. I feel bad when I accuse the wrong failed humorist.
****
Uh, kind of. Supposedly, I have a new alter-ego over at the Reagan Wing.
For good or for ill, I got a good chuckle out of that when I read it, though not at all for the reasons Doug Parris likely intended. I suppose if you think I sit around with Lincoln Chafee and Christine Todd Whitman, sipping chardonnay and plotting the demise of conservatives then perhaps you'll buy into his attempts at satire.
Personally, I think his issues with me and with Sound Politics in general show he might well be the craziest person in two-legged pants. But then again, that's not exactly a clinical opinion.
On a more serious topic, I do have some thoughts on the issues posed by kind people like Doug who graciously welcome people of various conservative ideologies into the Republican fold. I also have some thoughts on John McKay's recent speech in Wenatchee to the Mainstream Republicans, including this passage:
"What we've done is take issues like gay marriage and rubbed people's noses in it. ... We raise abortion up on the flagpole every single time to create dissension, to create some line that has nothing to do with what Republicans are about. We should accept people into the party who have divergent views, on immigration, on gay marriage."
The disconnect between the Mainstreamers and ardent social conservatives is palpable. Anyway, more to come, though it may not be what some readers expect.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 21, 2007 07:17 AM | Email ThisOn the other hand:
"What we've done is take issues like gay marriage and rubbed people's noses in it."
If by "we" he means Republicans and conservatives, he's either a liar or a fantasist (and his claims about Bush Adminisration actions should be judged in that light).
What "we" have done is merely oppose gay "marriage," particularly when it's imposed by courts against the wishes of the people.
Of course, the idea that mere American citizens should be permitted to debate government policy is horrifying to some people.
Posted by: ScottM on May 21, 2007 07:37 AMI don't know much about Reagan, but he wouldn't put up crap like that at that blog.
Reagan seems to entering a new status in the eternal argument on who was the greatest president sweepstakes. He is seeming to transcend most of the other presidents and elevating to near Washington/Lincoln status.
It just seems.
Posted by: swatter on May 21, 2007 08:31 AMThese would be the same same-sex marriages that are permitted by the courts, in accord with the wishes of the people directly involved.
You see, if Bob and Tim want to get married, should they prove in court that they ought to have the right, and the court supports their right, this is absolutely done in accord with the wishes of the people. (Bob and Tim are both people.)
But if Dan and Nat are both heterosexual men and a court insists that they marry (they've been roomates for seven years, after all), then a same-sex marriage has been "imposed by courts against the wishes of the people."
This is an important distinction. Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board of Education were both very unpopular at their times. One permitted interracial marriage (despite almost great opposition--same-sex marriage is embraced in comparison), the other banned segregation (also with great opposition in some quarters).
By Scott's thinking, since both of these decisions were opposed by well over 50% of the people when they were made, they were bad decisions.
But banning interracial marriage only hurts people who want to get married; there is no public benefit. Segregation is odious (I'm torn on using the word "evil.")
Those who oppose same-sex marriages needed form one. Their arguments for why I shouldn't remain unconvincing.
Posted by: John D on May 21, 2007 09:35 AMMy last line should have read:
Those who oppose same-sex marriages need not form one. Their arguments for why I shouldn't remain unconvincing.
Posted by: John D on May 21, 2007 09:37 AMThis discussion of courts hinges on only one thing: whether there is a Constitutional right to marry for gay couples. If there is, then the will of the people cannot take it away. If there is not, then the will of the people can take it away, and the court has no authority to overrule it.
And I think it is pretty clear that no such right to marry actually exists. Government-sanctioned marriage is not a right, it's merely an invention by civil authorities to more easily recognize other existing rights, enforce obligations, and generally benefit society as a whole by institutionalizing this basic societal unit.
You may argue that specific rights government confers upon maaried couples constitutes discrimination, but not that lack of marriage itself does. That flies against logic.
You can also argue that government should recognize gay couples through the civil institution of marriage or a similar institution, but that is a matter for the voters to decide, not the courts.
No one is saying you shouldn't form a same-sex marriage; the question is whether the government should bother recognizing it.
I have just one request to make of readers of both our blog and political commentary in Washington State. When you hear personal attacks on me or the Reagan Wing that purport to represent something I have said or believe, please make sure you get the facts right: direct quotes in context and quotes from me, not sentiments attributed to me.
The article Eric references (calling him "Erlich Earring") was not written by me and I was completely unaware that it had been written until I saw it up on the site. It was put up on the new site a day or so before we re-pointed the nameservers and when I saw it there (during the switch) I felt part of it was too demeaning and asked the author to remove some specific language. He did. But I don't intend to generally act as a censor of the authors.
I think it was sort of a practice post, anyway, and if that's all you see you'll miss some of the better spoofs of Sound and Eric:
Naral's New Shade of Lipstick,
SOUNDS ORANGE, and
MIDSTREAM REPUBLICANS OF WASHINGTON
You have to recognize that because the Reagan Wing speaks out on significant controversial topics within the Party, as does our parent organization, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (GOPwing.com), and because we are on the side of the majority opinions of the Republican grassroots (the conservative side), we have "pragmatic" enemies who have responded, not by debate, but by building a "talking points" file to attack our credibility indirectly:
1. The Reagan Wing (or Doug Parris) is extreme.
2. The Reagan Wing (or Doug Parris) works by personal attacks
3. The Reagan Wing (or Doug Parris) can't work with anyone that doesn't agree with them 100%.
4. The Reagan Wing (or Doug Parris) demands ideological purity.
5. The Reagan Wing (or Doug Parris) thinks that all we have to do is be more conservative and we'll start winning.
6. The Reagan Wing is just Doug Parris.
None of these things is true and I've compiled factual examples disproving each claim, ad infinitum, but I've found it doesn't stop the GOP left from continuing to repeat them.
What is true is that I have published politically significant negative things about other "Republicans," just as did Ronald Reagan:
1. Their advocacy for liberal positions (that tend to government oppression), and
2. Corrupt acts (like lying and breaking laws and rules to succeed).
Example: Eikenberry DESERVES Gorton Award
This tends to make enemies and because of the kinds of enemies we make, they primarily respond with behind-the-back whisper campaigns.
The good news is that we've already defeated some of the old "talking-points" they used in the beginning:
1. The Reagan Wing is just that "Reed Davis" group.
2. The Reagan Wing is just a one-issue group.
3. The Reagan Wing is just the "Religious Right."
4. The Reagan Wing is the John Birch society.
The Reagan Wing is much larger that Doug Parris, although I have been in the forefront for a few years. As new leadership emerges, that will certainly change. We have new and more likable spokespeople. Eric is not one of them.
"No one is saying you shouldn't form a same-sex marriage..."
Well, Pudge, I'm saying it. And I'll go further. It should be illegal.
Not 100 percent, no. But you certainly do attack and alienate people you disagree with on what you deem to be significant issues. And the effect is that your bombastic demeanor drives people away such that you can't work with them, and makes me and others wonder if that is the intended effect.
SECTION 12 SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROHIBITED.
No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.
Arguably, marriage is only meaningful if you are allowed to marry the person that you are, by nature, drawn toward. If you believe that homsexuality is caused by nature or nurture (as opposed to choice), as most scientists do, then I would interpret the WA constitution to allow gays to marry. I realize some would debate the statements in this paragraph, and that is fine. But I think those are the constitutional questions -- not whether the constitution specifically mentions a right to marry.
Posted by: Bruce on May 21, 2007 11:39 AMWouldn't that directly violate the First Amendment of the Constitution? (Yes, it would.)
Your quote of me was out of context. The full quote was, "No one is saying you shouldn't form a same-sex marriage; the question is whether the government should bother recognizing it." I was quite obviously implying that there is a sense of marriage that is separate from the legal institution of marriage.
There are, of course, two kinds of marriage, which we can call legal/civil/government marriage, and social/religious marriage. I usually just call them civil and social. Civil marriage is what the debate is about: whether government should recognize such unions.
But no one has seriously proposed eliminating social marriages, which the government has no power to do, and which would almost surely violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. If a church wants to say two people are married, without attempting to confer upon them any special legal standing, that church has an absolute right to do that.
Part of the problem is that people don't understand this dichotomy. The social instiution of marriage existed long before civil recognition of marriage ever existed. They are two different things. That's why I have a marriage certification from the county government, as well as a separate marriage certificate from the church.
And again, clearly, I was referring to the social (that is, non-legal) marriage in the half-quote you pasted from me. I hope you don't really believe such non-legal marriages should be made illegal, because I don't see how it is possible to conform that view to the First Amendment.
No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has not, of course, yet interpreted the right to marry based on sexual orientation as worth protection. Fortunately, many states interpret individual rights more aggressively.
That said, I do not agree with your interpretation of the WA Constitution, for two main reasons.
First, as I already said, just because marriage may in some case confer "privileges or immunities" that are not available to others does not mean that marriage itself must be open to every couple: it could just mean that whatever privilege or immunity is available via marriage should be made available in other ways to nonmarried couples.
This is, of course, the case now with most privileges and immunities. You can make wills, you can sign contracts, and so on.
Second, the text of the Constitution itself has a phrase in there that I think you're ignoring: "upon the same terms." It doesn't say everyone should be able to have the rights of marriage; it says that everyone who is under the terms of marriage should have the rights of marriage.
Taking your interpretation here to its logical conclusion, the WA Constitutional also prohibits laws against polygamy. After all, if the person you are "drawn to" is already married, and that person is drawn to both you and his existing spouse ... why should you be discriminated against?
I'm not buying it.
I also couldn't care less about nature vs. nurture vs. choice. I have a natural tendency toward having a terrible temper. I got this from my mom, who got this from her mom, and I've passed it on to my daughter (who had her bad temper in the womb, so don't tell me it's nurture or choice). Does this mean that it should be legal to act on those natural tendencies, to whatever end? Of course not. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is acceptable to society, and far less so for something that is nurtured.
I realize some would debate the statements in this paragraph, and that is fine. But I think those are the constitutional questions -- not whether the constitution specifically mentions a right to marry.
I never said, or meant to imply, anything about a specific right to marry. I was saying that I think reading a right to marry into either Constitution, as you're doing, is invalid. You, obviosuly, disagree; but I think we will agree that whether or not it is in the Constitution (expressed or implied) is the actual point: if it is not, then the courts overstep their bounds to overrule the will of the people; if it is, then the court is correct to do so.
Shrug. Black's Law Dictionary, Second Edition, says it's not. I'll take that over you. You can keep objecting, but it won't make you any closer to correct:
"Amnesty" and "pardon" are very different. The former is an act of the sovereign power, the object of which is to efface and to cause to be forgotten a crime or misdemeanor; the latter is an act of the same authority, which exempts this individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.
Since there is no "effacing" or "forgetting" of the crime, but merely an exemption from the current penalty, it is not amnesty, according to the traditional (and still common) use of the word.
Again: shrug. Rage against the dictionary, man.
[Eric] responds by accusing me of "personal attacks," but when have I ever said anything about him comparable to "...he might well be the craziest person in two-legged pants"?
I haven't.
From your perspective, that may be true. However, I find your statements about Eric to be at least as offensive as that. Fine, he called you crazy: you called him "shallow ... (on political issues)," and said the only reason he supports who he does is because he cares about winning more than being right.
You may think his calling you crazy is worse, but personally, I find questioning someone's motivations to be worse than simple name-calling.
But I'm the one you attack.
Shrug. I am attacking ideas too, no less than you are.
Your analogy to polygamy fails; laws against gay marriage prohibit gays from marrying anyone on earth to whom they are drawn, whereas laws against polygamy rule out marrying specific people but not the chance of finding someone. Polygamists have not, to my knowledge, argued that they are naturally drawn toward polygamy. (Although perhaps they could.)
Your analogy about a right to act on your natural temper fails, since this right must be weighed against others' rights to not be hurt by your temper. (Some argue that gay marriage would hurt others, but I don't find that convincing.)
Anyway, these are the issues that the US and state supreme courts are debating -- with slight differences in each case based on the wording of their constitutions and precedent.
Posted by: Bruce on May 21, 2007 12:25 PMAgain, what if I believe I am drawn to exactly one person, who is already married to someone else? It's not that I am drawn to polygamy, it is that I am drawn to a particular person, and to marry that person requires polygamy. Your interpretation denies me my "right to marry."
And as to harming others: forcing a majority of people to sanction something it doesn't want to sanction, and has no obligation to sanction, certainly is a harm.
But the point was simply that you were saying if it is something someone doesn't "choose" then that weighs in favor of gay marriage, but that's assumes homosexuality is not wrong *because* it is not a choice. Otherwise, our libertarian sensibilities would require us to accept it whether it is a choice or not, since as you say, it is not "harming" anyone, so why does it being a "choice" matter?
I know, you're referring to the notion that it takes away a privilege/immunity because a gay person can only marry another person of the same sex, but my point is that how is that mitigated in any way by personal choice? If I choose to "be gay," then why should I have any less right to marry a person of the same sex, in a free society?
So it still comes back to two things, and two things only, I believe: first, whether the Constitution requires allowing gay marriage (which I reject), and second, whether society wants to allow it regardless (which I think it should not).
That said, I do believe -- and here, I expect to be slammed -- that civil unions should be allowed. Not for gays, but for anyone. As I mentioned earlier, the original purpose of the state sanctioning of marriage was to recognize an existing institution and through that recognition benefit society, through recognizing rights (death benefits, etc.) and encouragement of fulfilling obligations (pooling of resources, etc.).
I have two friends, brothers, who live together. They pool their resources, they benefit society as much as most married couples; why should they not get similar legal protection and benefits for this union? And why not any couple, who wants to ease the burden on society by living together and sharing their lives?
Some say, well, but if they are not called "married" then they are second-class citizens. Fine, then get government out of the marriage business. Government should have no interest in whether or how I love my family. That's the church's job. Church should marry, and government should recognize merely the individual couple's choices to share rights and obligations to each other for the overall benefit of society. Social marriage is then "marriage," and civil marriage becomes "civil union" for everyone.
So I am against legalizing gay marriage. I am in favor of getting government out of the marriage business and making government's interest what it should have been all along: merely a way to recognize and formalize private contracts, the details of which would be left up to the individual couples.
Bring on the flames and accusations that I am a liberal who wants to destroy America and conservatism!
Hell, the Courts haven't even yet held that the 14th Amendment requires the states to recognize the ENUMERATED BILL OF RIGHTS, so for anyone to say it should recognize any other less obvious rights is pretty outlandish.
(I wrote a bit recently about the 14th Amendment and incorporation over at my Slashdot journal.)
Posted by: pudge on May 21, 2007 12:52 PMI disagree -- and I'm a liberal. Churches are based on God. Though most religions support love and marriage, that's not necessarily a function of church. So while it's reasonable to let churches be involved in marriage, society as a whole (and its policy-making manifestation, government) has an interest in social structures such as marriage.
Posted by: Bruce on May 21, 2007 12:56 PMFrankly, I would say you disagree BECAUSE you are a liberal. A conservative usually has an inherent revulsion toward such government intrusion.
Perhaps I’m the only one to catch it but the mental image of Eric cruising around in the saucer portion of the Space Needle high above Seattle firing orange death rays onto the hapless inhabitants below is kind of humorous in a bad Tom Cruise action flick kind of way.
I’m curious as to exactly what the symbolism is behind the pink NARAL pig. I would have thought a RINO rhino would have been more apropos. Or are we going for the old lipstick-and-prom-dress-on-a-pig approach? The last I checked, Eric lives in Snohomish County and not Enumclaw.
Kind of confused and being an Eatonville-ain and not being well versed in the fine usages of subtle humor I probably need to have the nuance explained to me more.
And oh, I know far more about the evolution of language than I care to admit. My degree is in communication, and I've spent a great deal of time studying communication theory and the evolution of language. Your ad hominem about my understanding of semantics aside, your statement that dictionaries are in any way authoritative is not only self-evidently false, but contradictory to what we know about language.
In fact, dictionaries are not authoritative about word meaning at all. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are only, in a few examples (such as the OED), fairly authoritative in describing past usage, but not current meaning. Current meaning is determined first and foremost by usage. And that's the problem: we have multiple usages.
As you can see -- again, if you read slowly what I actually wrote -- was that you are wrong according to a particular definition, not that a particular definition was absolutely correct. That is, I was not claiming that one definition of amnesty is correct, I was claiming that YOUR claim that one definition of amnesty is correct is, in fact, incorrect.
My problem is that the word "amnesty" is used as a vague pejorative, which has multiple contradictory meanings, and yet it is treated as though it has a specific and known meaning.
And as to "crime": dude. This word actually is defined, quite clearly, in the law. Being here illegally is not, legally speaking, a crime. Period, end of story. There's no room for disagreement on this. You can say that "sociologically" speaking it is a "crime" "against society," but if that's what you mean right now, then you are being exceptionally dishonest, because when you brought it up you were talking about CRIMINAL CONVICTION, which directly implies that you were speaking of the word in the legal sense. And, again, it is not a crime in the legal sense, and it never has been.
Equal Protection Under the Law: Is Andrew Sullivan Right About Gay Marriage?
by Amy Ridenour
"Andrew Sullivan, likely the nation's most prolific defender of gay marriage, offered this opinion on February 17: "...under almost any rational understanding of equal protection, civil marriage has to be extended to gay couples."
Sullivan relies on an unprovable and unsound assumption, that is, that there is a class of people who are inherently separate and distinct from other people based simply on their announcement of a preference, even a temporary one, for sexual relations with a person of their own gender.
In other words, Sullivan believes the Constitution requires the law to accommodate, by requiring the rewriting of long-held laws and the abandonment of fundamental assumptions about society and morality, the notion that these individuals have determined for themselves that they represent a distinct class under the law.
If Sullivan is right, any group anywhere could announce themselves to be a distinct class under the law, simply by asserting a preference contrary to the established norm in a matter regulated, subsidized, or affected by government policies. That is, after all, essentially all the homosexual advocacy organizations have done.
Many of those sympathetic to Sullivan's position will disagree, saying sexual preference (a term many abhor, but nonetheless the one that seems most accurate) is something people are born with. Setting aside the notion that this is not scientifically provable (though it is possible to prove it is not wholly true -- there are persons described as "ideological lesbians," that is, extreme feminists who have made an intellectual decision to engage in intimate relationships only with women), it would be a bad precedent to use personality characteristics as a basis for constitutional interpretation...."
Even if sexual preference is something we are born with, other personality traits are inborn as well. For example, if one's "sexual personality" elevates a person into a protected class, why not another common personality characteristic: shyness? Most people believe some people are born shy. Shy people may well suffer a financial disadvantage in a competitive capitalist economy. Should shy people be accommodated as a protected class under the law? After all, shy people probably aren't faking it. Who would chose to be born shy?
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA504.html
I know that not everyone has my views,I am a conservative Christian and I am willing to be pragmatic, but I am not willing to totally give up all prinicple.
Posted by: WVH on May 21, 2007 01:51 PMI'm glad you got a chuckle. Apparently though, you missed the original post at Life of the Party:
(http://lifeoftheparty.typepad.com/life_of_the_party/2007/02/narals_new_shad.html) where the NARAL Pig first came out with her orange lipstick.
I was hoping you would have brought it up at the Lincoln Day Dinner during our pleasant conversation. I would have told you that I think Stefan's name would have been more appropriate to use (I cited examples of why), but the artist thought that your name worked so well. I agreed, and figured you could take a joke. That said, I have noticed that you've come a long way (baby) in acknowledging that the Republican party needs to take pro-lifers seriously, and not take our votes for granted. I welcome the common ground we may be reaching here (albeit small), and hope you won't dub me as the "craziest person in a skirt". But if you do, I can take it.
Don,
You might understand the humor better if you read that original post.
Posted by: Michelle on May 21, 2007 02:00 PMAnd I'm amused by the analogy you quote about shyness. Doesn't the Bible say the meek shall inherit the earth? OK, I know meek isn't exactly the same as shy, and the Bible didn't talk of passing a law giving the meek anything ... but now we are a society of laws. Besides, no one says the shy can't get married (once they work up the courage to ask someone out on a date, anyway...).
Posted by: Bruce on May 21, 2007 02:12 PMI don't know the answers, and they're complex enough that I'm inclined for now to give most of the choice to the mother. But I do think these are fair questions, and would be interested in your answers.
Posted by: Bruce on May 21, 2007 02:27 PMYou see, I didn’t get that. Now that I saw your explanation at RW. It’s the most beautiful parody I’ve ever read. Go with it run like a young boy in a field.
Just… could you run the explanation by us just one more time? I get the sense of it. I just don’t understand it.
Really? Can you explain this? When do you feel it is OK to question another person's motives? I question people's motives all the time, especially when they are not known to me personally, and I am considering entering into some sort of partnership with them.
You seem to be advocating a kind of pragmatism where there is no room to consider the principles of whomever you are about to crawl into bed with. "Git'en her done" overrules all, and morals are secondary.
Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?
1. You have hit upon the dilemma for those attempting to interpret Christianity. For those that interpret the Scripture literally, it is a non-issue. There are several denominations that do not make a literal interpretation of the Bible and they are free to embrace abortion, gay marriage and ordiane a Bishop who is gay. In fact, former Bishop Spongen of the American Anglican convention said he wasn't sure there is a God. So the range claiming to be Christian is broad. Now, here is the part where pragmatism comes in. I believe, as do many Christians of many denominations, that the Bible is the literal inspired Word of the living God. Gay marriage is a nonstarter for me.
2.I do believe that people should be treated fairly and that is why I don't object to domestic partnerships which address many legal inequities.
Now, the question is whether those demanding a full redefinition of "marriage" are going to be pragmatic and accept domestic partnership?
3. Regarding abortion, Roe v. Wade is very shortly, if it hasn't already, going to collide with neo-natal medical science. The question is if there is a viable life, should it be saved? If the life is viable and it is taken, is it murder? Remember, when Roe was decided, viability of life was very different than it is now. There are many times that society weighs various rights, but we haven't reached the point yet than in the excercise of my rights I have the right to kill another person. What does society do when a life is viable? That is the legal, moral, and ethical question.
Posted by: WVH on May 21, 2007 03:17 PMYes.
Can you explain this?
Names are just names. Calling somone crazy is mere sticks-and-stones stuff. Questioning someone's motives strikes directly to their character and reputation.
When do you feel it is OK to question another person's motives? I question people's motives all the time, especially when they are not known to me personally, and I am considering entering into some sort of partnership with them.
But you don't go on a public website and post that you believe their motives are impure, do you? I think in the context it was clear that "questioning" doesn't mean literally thinking to yourself and questioning, but impugning the motives in public.
And that's not to say that you should never do that, either. I've done it before, and I expect I will again. Just that it's to my mind a very serious thing to do -- far more serious than silly name-calling -- and you should be ready to back it up if you do it.
Doug Parris did not even attempt to back up his claim that Eric is "shallow" on political issues or that he cares more about winning than being right: Doug Parris just stated those as ad hominem attacks on Eric to impugn his character to win the argument. And I find that to be far worse than Eric calling him crazy (not that I think that was OK either).
This reminds me of the Today Show not getting Rush's parody about "Barack, The Magic Negro".
Posted by: Michelle on May 21, 2007 03:56 PMWhy go easy on him? He might well be crazier than a lot of people who don't even wear pants.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on May 21, 2007 04:05 PMHere it is phrased another way:
Will we move left to win?
On one hand, Conservatives in general and Reagan conservatives in particular are frequently ridiculed on this board as "more concerned with ideological purity" than winning.
On the other hand, Conservatives, rightly, call unprincipled pragmatists "RINO" because their commitment to principle is a matter of convenience, subject to change as political advantage shifts, ala the career of Mitt Romney.
Everyone would like to be both right and win. The ultimate question is: "Which is most important to you?"
Would you do the right thing even if you know you would lose an election over it, Or would you win an election by doing something you knew wasn't right?
The best way to avoid having to answer that question is by never actually knowing something to be right or wrong. It is the attempt to make decisions in a moral void. It is the height of shallowness.
Killing people is wrong if anything is. People are people at conception and that is scientific fact. Trying to "finesse" the issue by a "moderate" position where you claim to believe that fact, yet refuse to outlaw all abortions is intellectually insupportable, but if one is shallow enough, you can do it and sleep at night.
How was your night, Eric?
Posted by: Doug Parris on May 21, 2007 04:16 PMChafee. Not "Chaffee." Why is it no one can spell that name? Lincoln Chafee and his father, John Chafee, served a cumulative 31 years in the United States Senate. It is not an obscure name.
Posted by: stu on May 21, 2007 05:29 PMAnd your epithet "RINO," as I already mentioned, ignores history. By your standard, the majority of Republicans in the last 100 years are "RINO," including Presidents Roosevelt, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and both Bushes. Saying that the majority of Republicans do not have a right to the name Republican is self-evidently false.
Further, impugning someone as "unprincipled" just because you disagree with them is extraordinarily low-classed, and certainly a tactic that is far beneath the principles of Ronald Reagan.
Also, right now, I am not wearing pants.
Bottom line, Doug Parris: I agree with you on most of the issues, but, online anyway, you're a nasty and illogical person and I don't respect you very much.
"We should accept people into the party who have divergent views, on immigration, on gay marriage."
You can add to that abortion, taxes, spending, environmentalsim, Constitutional interpretation, foreign policy, etc., etc.
I agree. Reagan agreed. We should welcome them, accepting their support, votes and money. The debate, however, is not about who we allow to come to meetings or to vote Republican or who can file to run or do doorbelling or other volunteer work or make campaign donations.
Cutting people out, as if we were some exclusive club, would be stupid. It is that stupidity with which the GOP left means to impugn, eronneously, Reagan Wing conservatives.
The debate is about what we expect of candidates that we support for public office. And if those issues make no difference, what's the point?
There is nothing wrong with the Democrats that can't be accomodated by making the "tent" a little bigger.
In Sam Reed's case we already have.
Posted by: Doug Parris on May 21, 2007 05:33 PMAs to the joke, I got it. I just didn't think it was very funny, regrettably so. If anybody can enjoy a good laugh at my expense, it's me. I really do provide a lot of material once you get to know me well.
And no, I don't recall seeing the pig before. It's possible, but didn't immediately ring a bell. Besides, it was the text of the recent faux post itself that I thought was a lot dumber.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 21, 2007 06:05 PMOut of morbid curiosity, since when have I made claims of having "any pull in Snohomish County." That's a new one to me.
Oh, and yes, I'm to the left of most of the grassroots. That's self-evident. But to say I'm not a conservative just because you don't accept that label for me is more than a little silly. It's like saying someone isn't a liberal because the netroots doesn't embrace them.
I'm certainly in line with the typical Republican voter in Washington state on most issues. If you can't get your arms around then I probably can't help you.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 21, 2007 07:16 PMAs to the "deep connections" issue, I think you're complaining about the content of my posts, which you obviously don't like. Fine, that's your right. But, I don't think you're on any grounds one way or another to make claims about who my "connections" are in Snohomish County politics. Nor are you really on solid ground in questioning my "apparent insight" into the county. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
But, I do appreciate you visiting Sound Politics. Have a good night.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 21, 2007 07:54 PMThen I strongly advise you not to enter into a gay marriage. But what gives you the right to inflict your close-mindedness (I'm not name-calling here; you said you are not open to negotiation on this) on others?
"I do believe that people should be treated fairly and that is why I don't object to domestic partnerships which address many legal inequities.
Now, the question is whether those demanding a full redefinition of "marriage" are going to be pragmatic and accept domestic partnership?"
No, that's not the question. You are on the wrong side of demographics and history here. Gay marriage is coming. (I'm not sure where the US is going on taxes and abortion, but the trend is clearly toward full equality for gays.) The question is when Republicans are going to stop shooting themselves in the feet over this issue. It is true that domestic partnership may be an intermediate step, and I applaud you for being as open-minded as you can be given that you take the Bible literally. But the long-term outcome is obvious.
"Regarding abortion, Roe v. Wade is very shortly, if it hasn't already, going to collide with neo-natal medical science. The question is if there is a viable life, should it be saved? If the life is viable and it is taken, is it murder? Remember, when Roe was decided, viability of life was very different than it is now. There are many times that society weighs various rights, but we haven't reached the point yet than in the excercise of my rights I have the right to kill another person. What does society do when a life is viable? That is the legal, moral, and ethical question."
I agree. Roe v. Wade was a compromise based on science, ethics, and pragmatism (though the Supreme Court couldn't admit that). Since then it has gained the added power of precedent but the science is changing. Similarly, values like "Thou shalt not kill" were based on the assumption that the person was living outside the womb with no medical support whatsoever. Dealing with these changes will continue to challenge society, not to mention the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Bruce on May 21, 2007 08:59 PMCome on, Eric. You say you got the joke, but you "didn't think it was very funny." Aren't you just being a bit thin-skinned, lashing out at his credibility?
Posted by: Michelle on May 21, 2007 09:05 PM
As one narrow-minded person to another. Have no plans to enter into a gay marriage, it is still a non-starter. You knew the answer I was going to give when you posted. You are trying to foist your view of the world on society, sobeit. I with many others will resist. So there it is. I don't know what the long term outcome is because I don't know what the ultimate plan is. I am human.
All I know is I know that I know that I know. So, since you already have an idea of where I stand on things secular progressive, no need to ask, no surprises there.
On abortion there is a trend and that trend is towards allowing it (under rules of Casey rather than Roe) where the health of the mother is at risk. Additionally, I believe the trend will be for early aborting of the life via use of morning after pills and likely pharmaceutical 'improvements' of such in the first 3 to 4 weeks of pregnancy. I see the trend where the American people generally dislike abortion but if the parents can make up their minds on it very early, then they turn their eyes from it.
We are getting close to having enough support in enough states that we could change the federal constitution on that issue as well.
Posted by: Doug on May 21, 2007 09:54 PMI can't prove what will happen in the future, but these trends seem pretty powerful to me.
Posted by: Bruce on May 21, 2007 10:16 PMAs for his credibility, I don't think it's very good regardless of any attempts at public humor he may try.
Also, he did and has used the term to critique an assortment of domestic policies where the term "neo-con" has no relevance. Now, he might disagree with all those policies he ticked off, but to say come from "neo-cons" is simply not true.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 21, 2007 10:36 PMI worked a bit with Eric (for the election pamphlet) in regards to his excellent work on the County Charter Review Commission, where he served as co-vice-chair. His father, former President of the Edmonds City Council, ran for County Executive and came extremely close to winning. He knows a lot more about Snohomish County government than most people I know, including myself.
To say he has no insight into Snohomish County just isn't credible.
I disagree with Eric about a bunch of different things, but you can't convince me that your characterization of him makes sense.
Say what you will about Theodore Roosevelt, but he was no pantywaist. And he fully embraced the values upon which the GOP was founded- and viewed principle as more important than Party loyalty.
You don't see many people with that kind of courage these days, do you, Pudge? In fact, I would wager that current GOP leaders would accuse TR of being a radical Conservative rather than conservatives calling him a RINO. So I'm calling you wrong on that point.
Now, if you were referring to TR's cousin Franklin, you would be mistakenly identifying FDR as a Republican when he was, in fact, a Democrat. However, the argument can be made that FDR was far more effective and dynamic a leader during a much larger war than the current squish who resides in the White House.
To all and sundry:
I've launched my share of bombs against the leaders of the Republican Party. But my rationale for the indictments I have leveled against the GOP is not predicated upon the silly notion that conservatism should rule for its own sake. I do have my values, and they are conservative. But that isn't really the point. I aim my wrath at current GOP leadership not for their disdain for conservatism per se, but rather because of their moral cowardice.
The truth is that the modern GOP stands for nothing and falls for everything. History bears this out in that the Republicans capitulated on every major issue upon which they ran in 2004. And by 2006, they completely sold out. And when angry voters dared to demand an accounting from them, the politicians treated them as if they had no right to dare speak to so lofty a group of beings. Those people are bums, losers, panderers and posers, and I offer the back of my hand to every spineless one of them.
Debate is the foundry in which the direction of a free society is settled. And in a free society, all opinions and views should at least be heard and carefully considered, even if not ultimately embraced. To dismiss someone as a fool simply because you don't agree with their opinion does not make that person a fool. It makes you a fool for failing to think critically.
But every human being has a personal set of core values that serve as a lens through which the world is viewed, whether that view is ultimately clear or distorted. Each person is ultimately responsible for keeping his or her lens clean. If a person chooses to go through life wearing a smudged pair of glasses, that's his choice. It doesn't make him right- it only makes him a poor navigator. If the same person goes on to point out the blindness of others without pausing to clean his own lenses first, then it would be right to call that person a hypocrite.
I don't care if you are conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, or anything else. When you choose not to think critically, the only fool is you.
Posted by: ERNurse on May 23, 2007 09:45 PMI am neither party, but an indie. I think that there is enough moral cowardice in both parties to go around. I don't really understand the Karl Roves and Terry Mc Auliffes of this world. They spend so much time in the pursuit of power, they acquire the power and the only excercise of their power is to test the winds to find out which direction to turn to keep themselves in power. I imagine that at the core, there is either a complete lack of feeling or a really dead zone.
I really don't think that there is a conservative government in power despite what No Facts and the others say. I think it has been an opportunitistic government and I really wouldn't expect Team Hillary to be different. Most that are positioned to assume power are focused on their version of now and now means I get to keep my power for now. I guess I agree with you, only I think your comments apply to both parties.
When do we get to read your promised "thoughts on the issues posed by kind people like Doug who graciously welcome people of various conservative ideologies into the Republican fold. I also have some thoughts on John McKay's recent speech in Wenatchee to the Mainstream Republicans..."
You said, "it may not be what some readers expect." You're almost as good as Geri Modrell with the suspense.
Because we EXPECT Democrats to act that way they do.
When the Republican candidates ran on the promise that they would faithfully represent the ideals upon which they campaigned and then immediately abandoned those promises the moment they were sworn in, they did more damage to the trust Americans had in Congress than the Democrats ever could. They did so in a way that was cowardly, arrogant, and supremely craven.
I condemn the GOP for defending the spineless worms who trampled our faith in them underfoot. I condemn them further for learning nothing from the last election. The GOP can rot in hell. I wouldn't piddle on a GOP leader if he or she was on fire.
But the Democrats... well, there are no surprises there.
Posted by: ERNurse on May 24, 2007 01:08 AMIt's nice to see you back!
Posted by: Michelle on May 24, 2007 02:15 PM