November 10, 2008
Quote of the Month

Let's grow up, conservatives. If we want to take the party back -- and I think we can -- let's get to work. -- Barry Goldwater, 27 July 1960.

I am not on the McCain-bash bandwagon. This isn't about McCain. But let's face it: the GOP has not been run by strong conservatives up and down the ticket since Newt Gingrich left. We've not been in the wilderness quite as much as conservatives had been in 1960 -- no conservative President, nor even nominee, in almost 30 years, and Democratic domination of the Congress for almost as long -- but we soon may be.

Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower. It's more un-conservative than Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain. But even though I'd defend Dole's and McCain's more-conservative-than-not credentials, and the left tries to paint the Bushes as conservatives, it's not just about the top of the ticket, but the control of the party, and the Bush years were, by any objective standard, anything but conservative on most issues.

I don't know how to fix things exactly, but one thing is clear: if you sit on the sidelines, you're contributing to the problem. Get to work.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at November 10, 2008 04:16 AM | Email This
Comments
1. The problem as I see it is that we as conservatives need to become active within the Republican Party. WE have to replace the leadership of the Republican Party with conservatives. Liberals run the Republican party at the national level and and somewhat from the state level.
Talking with a few insiders I heard that McCain was choosen for us for our ticket before the primaries. They ensured McCain won. McCain could not get the conservatives to go out and vote for him. Look at how his campaign muzzled Palin for several critical weeks. Look at how they threw her into interviews with liberal press. She should have gone to some conservative places first to get use to being asked pointed questions.
MSM is not the place she should have faced first. Was it McCain or was it Republican LEadership/McCain advisors that set that up. To mute her strong voice for Conservatism.
As long as the Republican party wants to be liberal/Democrat lite. We can not win.
Get out get involved. We need to know others are out there. Washington State Republican chances all nil for the next few years. Find some conservatives to support. Let us try to get conservatives into the state house and state Senate. Support strong conservatives for local races. LEt us get more Conservatives elected at the local level. Take back our counties one at a time.
Conservatives can win but they have to have a stong conservative message not a watered down Democrat Message. Remember the Republican State or National will not talk about Conservative IDeals. We have to make that statement. We have to have help those conservatives win. We have to help them run their offices in an honest and with integrity. Not lead the liberal National party and strong liberal voices within this state water down thier message.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on November 10, 2008 06:11 AM
2. I think you are right. We need to work in the Republican party to make the changes that we want. I love living here in both the U.S. and Washington State, we need to make it easier for our children and my grandchildren to live here. Having Mike Hope pulling ahead helps, there is hope! It took a lot of work for Mike and his volunteers and that is the kind of work we all need to do to get this thing turned around.

Posted by: chotzie on November 10, 2008 06:34 AM
3. @1: She should have gone to some conservative places first to get use to being asked pointed questions.

Allow me to laugh a little bit at that one. The questions asked in other interviews were softballs, and if Pawlenty, Crist, Jindal, or anyP candidate were in the room, they could have torn through them. She is NOT the voice you folks want representing you again.

Conservatives can win but they have to have a stong conservative message not a watered down Democrat Message.

But that's the lesson here. Conservatives cannot win in 50 states if their party takes a very strong collective right-wing stance, both on social policy and on fiscal matters. The country is, as a whole, centrist, being slightly to the right on fiscal issues and slightly to the left on social ones. (With some regional exceptions, and the ability to be pulled based on appeals to nonpartisan "common sense".) Appeal to the base in whichever way you can, but you cannot lose sight of the fact that you need to capture that middle. You need to attract folks that aren't going to take a shift to the right very well unless you can explain in much better, less abstract terms about how the Republicans will do a better job representing their interests.

Talk about becoming more conservative all you want, but Democrats will run the table if you start to abandon the middle.

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 07:02 AM
4. I remember moving to Pittsburgh, PA about ten years ago.

I played golf in a Republican Party golf outing.

When we were down, one of the State reps. asked me what I thought of the local Republican party.

My reply, "No conservatives".

He was shocked and dumbfounded..........

Posted by: Norm on November 10, 2008 07:10 AM
5. That's it! Let's nominate more people like Ellen Craswell to run for office! There's a guaranteed win if I ever saw one!

Read the national election stats. Contrary to what the media tells you, Obama did NOT win because he somehow energized some huge mass of people to vote for him. In fact, he got about the same number of Dems as Kerry did in 2004. The key difference was that the percentage of self-identified GOP voters fell from 39% to 32% and Independents rose from 20% to 29%. Who did those switching I's vote for? Obama.

And, of course, you had the pouty GOP'ers who just stayed home. For the whiny children who "wouldn't even hold [their] nose to vote McCain," I hope Obama's policies hit you square in the gut. You naive strategy didn't give the Dems a chance to fail and the Republicans a chance to roar back and save the country. You gave the Far Left a toehold. You let them establish a beachhead, you idiots.

If you want to change the party, you have to change it from within. Change takes time and you have to sell it. You also have to realize what battles can be won and which ones must be reframed. Obama fooled the public by putting a new coat of paint on creaky old ideas. Isn't there a single PR or advertising exec in the GOP? You can't keep selling the same ideas in the same way and expect to win.

Don't take this post as an argument that the GOP should somehow water itself down to nothing and abandon certain core principles, but calling anyone who isn't lock-step with you a "RINO" has to go. Otherwise, you end up just like the Litmus Test Left instead of the party of the big tent.

Posted by: The Real Mark on November 10, 2008 07:40 AM
6. To all of you won't-vote-McCain-to-prove-a-point "Republicans," print this article out and refer back to it every time Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Rangel or any other lefty does something to hurt this country:

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/saul-alinsky-takes-the-white-h

Remember, YOU helped make it happen. There's the beachhead you gave them.

Posted by: The Real Mark on November 10, 2008 07:56 AM
7. Conservatives are the majority. Liberals and Independents combined are a minority. Suggest readers who doubt check the election results of Reagan and recent Battleground survey results.

Palin pulled crowds. Huge crowds. She gave McCain an immediate boost. When conservatives are motivated all is possible. When conservative values are betrayed, Republicans lose.

Contract with America is another example of Conservative Power.

We don't need a bigger tent. Conservatives are the bigger tent. Our success relies on us acting accordingly.

Posted by: Snuffy on November 10, 2008 07:56 AM
8. Knowing that WA would be blue again at the federal level, I debated writing in Ron Paul vs. voting Libertarian. I ended up going with Barr.

I only would have considered voting for McCain if he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning WA - and even then only because I think he would have been preferable to Obama.

I'm not sure how many folks feel similarly to me, but here goes:

The Republican party is not going to get my enthusiastic vote until they embrace true conservatism and liberty. When I took "social studies" classes in high school, we learned that "conservative" meant that government played as small a role in your everyday life as possible. Clearly, that is not what most people think of today.

I want a fiscally conservative federal government that will eliminate the deficit and balance the budget. I am not a fan of social programs we have now (or are about to have) and I strongly believe citizens need to be responsible for their choices. Similarly, handing out 100's of billions of taxpayer dollars to corporations that screwed up is not conservative!

That was probably preaching to the choir/here is where I likely diverge from most of you "conservatives" on SP.

Government should stay that hell out of people's lives, respect their privacy, and treat every one fairly.

I think issues such as abortion, gay marriage, god in schools, etc. only serve to distract us while our national debt climbs to $10,639,657,549,652.
Religious beliefs, lifestyle and a woman's choice should not be subject to government control or approval.

With regard to our "wars" (terrorism, drugs, etc.) I will say they are painfully expensive, misguided, ineffective, and they reduce the quality of life in America. I am a hawkish non-interventionist.

Jeffersonian leaders preferred a small army and navy, fearing that a large military establishment would involve the United States in excessive foreign wars, and potentially allow a domestic tyrant to seize power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States) That statement sums up a lot of how I feel and what I fear.

To sum up a rambling post, I would support a Republican only if he or she would reign in spending and leave me alone.

Posted by: Dantzler on November 10, 2008 07:59 AM
9. Snuffy, what have you been sniffing?

Conservatives are NOT the majority. For one, self-identified Republicans were lucky to get second place in voter percentage this year. The old rule of thumb gave Republicans 40% at most. R's have always needed to win over I's and moderate Dems.

And Reagan? Besides the fact that the country and the world has changed in 28 years, there is not a single politician around today -- R or D -- that approaches the man. Sure, there are some who share a trait or two with him, but none put it in one package.

Palin may have pulled crowds, but that isn't enough. 10,000 fans at a rally are a drop in the bucket in a state with 5 million voters.

Posted by: The Real Mark on November 10, 2008 08:08 AM
10. Dantzler:
Right on! I agree completly!

Others:
I will remember my non vote for McCain everytime Obama signs in another crappy law. I will remember how I was given a horrible choice between two mainstream candidates. I will remember how people tried to make me feel guilty for not chosing either of them.

I hope you all remember in 2012 when the GOP nominated another liberal horrible candidate that they are doing so because they know they can count on your vote no matter who they chose.

Posted by: Lysander on November 10, 2008 08:14 AM
11. Didn't "true conservatives" run a "true conservative" candidate for Governor in SayWA a few cycles back? Was it Carlson? How did that work out?

How did President Goldwaster work out?

How did President Reagan work out? Very well, as I recall. Why? Because he was a conservative whose personal style and message appealed to not only the "true conservative" base, but a broader spectrum of voters. He presented a conservative message in an attractive, appealing, non-threatening manner. That and he ran against an incredibly weak opponent who utterly botched the job.

Similarly, in 1972, Richard Nixon, a moderate-conservative, was able to clobber an opponent who was hopelessly inept and unappealing (which is really saying something when you're going up against Richard Nixon).

A "true conservative" who only attracts votes from the base will probably lose by 20 points (President Goldwater). A "true liberal" who only gets the votes of the liberals base will probably lose by 20 points (Presidents McGovern and Mondale). Successful candidates (Clinton, Bush, Oboma) win by broadening their appeal. That doesn't mean sacrificing principles (assuming you have any), but it does mean making them appealing to independent and unaffiliated voters.

Posted by: Interested Observer on November 10, 2008 08:16 AM
12. Agree with demokid, Palin was part of the problem, not the solution. She didn't deliver a single group that she was supposedly brought in to attract, and please, "large crowds" (of mostly middle-aged women) do not a successful candidate make.

McCain let Obama get to the right of him on the economy -- tax cuts, etc. -- and looked weak in the face of the financial meltdown. Astounding as it seems, Obama and Biden came off looking much more presidential. Again, Palin was a big part of the problem.

Finally, Bush ran as more of a social conservative than McCain ever did, and cleaned up at the polls. The nation is socially conservative -- even in California homosexual marriage was defeated. To even think that the GOP is going to jettison social conservatism in order to satisfy a few shrieking amoral libertarians and a handful of beltway columnists is insane. The GOP is *not* Andrew Sullivan, nor is the nation.

Posted by: DomWalk on November 10, 2008 08:26 AM
13. Lysander @ 10

If you're going to litmus test every candidate, then you can at least be secure in the knowledge that nobody you vote for will ever be in office. And, to top it off, you'll likely be part of the problem that results in the *greater* of "two evils," as you might put it, running the country. Throwing nothing but long bombs may score a touchdown now and then, but you won't win many games -- especially once they've figured out your playbook.

Again, I hope your myopia earns you a big, fat tax increase!

Posted by: The Real Mark on November 10, 2008 09:01 AM
14. Don't sniff. Obama is the past coke head.

More to the point about conservatives being the majority.

As one poster noted, Conservative issues pass. Traditional marriage got the vote in CA.

Obama, the press protected candidate, was able to actually run as a fiscal conservative. Marx must be laughing in his grave.

Obviously, McCain was not to be. Wonder why?

Posted by: Snuffy on November 10, 2008 09:09 AM
15. Real Mark:
A litmus test implies there was one issue that i judge the candidates on. I disagreed with the majority of McCains positions.

To place blame for the two bad candidates on the very people that refused to vote for them is very 1984 of you.

Posted by: Lysander on November 10, 2008 09:19 AM
16. There is only one reason Barack Obama will be entering the White House next January (yes, Obama worshipers, he's not president until next January). That reason is simply the grotesque bias and deceit committed by the mainstream media.

And anyone who thinks some level of truth or journalistic integrity will return anytime soon, the last week since the Messaiah's election should make it clear that Journalism is dead in America.

As of today, whenever given the need, I will refer to our liberal media as "the American Pravda". It is a well-earned named and title for the likes of Chris Mathews, George Stephanopolus, Tom Brokaw, Gwen Ifill, and the entire cabal of liberals who have made a mockery of journalism and covered-up for Obama all the way to victory.

The lengths to which our Pravda went to get Obama elected will be heralded even by the real Pravda, as it works in Russia to get Vladamir Putin back into Russia's presidency.

Pravda means "the truth" in Russian. So referring to the American media as the American Pravda should carry with it the same sarcasm and contempt as Pravda has earned worldwide.

Posted by: Reality on November 10, 2008 09:28 AM
17. Media, my a**, it was the person and the anti-Bush climate, plain and simple. Don't over-clock this and come on, Russia/Pravda is a non-event. Get into the 21st Century...don't make this any more complicated than it actually is. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 10, 2008 09:35 AM
18. Snuffy @ 14

A single issue cannot define a serious political party. As for the CA vote... a lot of African-Americans are strong believers in traditional marriage, but will vote Dem on economic or even other social issues.

By your logic:
Traditional marriage = win in CA
John McCain supports traditional marriage
John McCain = win in CA??

Lysander @ 15

So, you're saying you agreed more with Obama's positions than McCain's? Then, as someone who helped elect Obama, you did your job.

Posted by: The Real Mark on November 10, 2008 09:36 AM
19. I'm completely lost as to how going hard right equals political success: A relevant excerpt from Michael Medved's recent blog follows: "But the fact is that with the GOP representing just 30% of overall voters (in the victorious race of 2004 as well as this year's big loss), and with self-identified "conservatives" only 34% of overall voters (exactly the same percentage as 2004), you simply can't win by appealing only to "conservatives" or "Republicans." You need to win a majority of "independents" (40% of voters this year) and self-described "moderates", or somehow persuade substantial numbers of Democrats and liberals to vote for you, in order to win elections.

Reagan, the first President Bush, and George W. Bush all managed to appeal to moderates and independents by running to the center. Reagan (who chose George H.W. Bush as his running mate and made a big push to attract moderates in both '80 and '84) never attacked his intra-party opponents as "RINOs" or "phony conservatives" or offered long-check lists to assure conservative purity. He probably wouldn't pass muster with today's right wingers because the greatest conservative of them all was anything but a hardliner on immigration (he signed a massive amnesty bill, remember?) and even agreed to several major tax increases (which George W, Bush and John McCain NEVER did, by the way). If we fail to follow Reagan's pragmatic and inclusive example, and connect with independent and moderate-minded voters, it's sheerest fantasy to believe that the GOP could ever win anything, anywhere, with conservatives alone."

I would love for the party to campaign hard right and win; but the party won't win. The option of running hard right is an option, if we want to lose. I think we forget, for whatever reason, how centrist Reagan was.

Posted by: Todd on November 10, 2008 09:39 AM
20.
Do you guys like running headfirst into brick walls?

Conservatism was rejected -- not Republicanism.

People want candidates who think its 2008, not 1988.

People don't want the government interfering with their mores at all. It's a no-win situation.

People want personal freedom and the power to succeed.

The Democrat "victory" was one of fear -- people feared the future of new technology and a new economy and want to hide behind Government bailouts and welfare.

There's no going backward...only forward.

Bush understood that and he made it work.

That's why he will be looked at as one of the greatest American Presidents of all time.

Posted by: John Bailo on November 10, 2008 09:43 AM
21. I don't agree that Palin was part of the problem because I don't think she was a drag on the ticket. I do, however, think that her ability to help the ticket was compromised because the campaign bungled her rollout so completely and allowed her to be defined by the MSM.

Bailo, this is just my opinion, of course, but I think you have it backwards. I fervently hope that it was Republicanism, not conservatism, that was rejected. We ran a candidate who was a Republican, but not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by: Paula on November 10, 2008 09:53 AM
22. Come on guys, Lysander has never met a Republican yet who he would vote for. If you consider Ron Paul a Republican, then m

Posted by: swatter on November 10, 2008 09:56 AM
23. "I'm completely lost as to how going hard right equals political success:"

Probably a blowback from how going hard left equaled political success in this cycle.

We are putting the cart way before the horse, here. First, fringers like dumbo telling the GOP how to fix things is a lot like men describing the child birth experience: idiotic.

Before we even look at message or philosophy, the GOP must fix its basic competency and infrastructure issues. I banged the drum for a statewide minority outreach program for years. WSRP needs a formal candidate recruiting, vetting and training process.

These infrastructure issues must be resolved and addressed before we get into messaging. Because if we don't begin to address minority issues ALL the time... if we don't run quality, well-trained and well financed candidates... then it won't matter what we have to say, because no one will listen.

And folks, in case you haven't noticed, this state isn't getting any more caucasian.

So, by all means... keep squabbling about the message. Left or right, up or down... if we don't end the arterial bleeding in the minority communities, we will achieve a deeper, darker shade of blue no matter what we say to the people of this state.

Posted by: Hinton on November 10, 2008 10:01 AM
24. A bit of Backup? to support my above post. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 10, 2008 10:25 AM
25. Let's admit one thing, even though the very short McCain era as GOP leader is over... we need to look at why he was the wrong candidate for the times. I personally couldn't believe he became the nominee. But the EAST COAST was largely responsible for re-inflating a failing campaign. Maybe that was democrats voting for him because they felt he'd be easy to beat, or maybe it was Republican "moderates" who felt that being more "centrist" was what would sway the public towards the GOP.
IT DIDN'T WORK! OK? Let's take the lessons learned from that and from the similarly ill fated Dole Presidential run and change the party back to what used to WIN elections. WE DON'T NEED TO BE MORE LIKE DEMOCRATS! That should be obvious. Democrat light is not what we should be pushing.
Reaganism is what we should be all about. The "moderate" Bush family has been a disaster for the GOP. Let's let go of them please. Nice people, bad leaders. We got beat on every issue; Energy, taxes, immigration, foreign policy, economy...
It's embarrasing really. The Democrats have NO track record of being successful on any of those issues (even Clinton just sat back and let Republicans run things). Thery ran on "we're not Bush" all the way down to the local levels. The polls all point to most people agreeing with Republicans on all those issues. WE DIDN'T DELIVER "OUR MESSAGE" ADEQUATELY! Obama did a better job of delivering the Republican message - and he's not even going to carry it out!
What do I mean? I mean we keep finding these inarticulate candidates to deliver the message which most people actually agree with, but the MESSAGE doesn't get delivered properly. We just elected a MARXIST/SOCIALIST who bull-$hitted his way into getting elected by acting like a conservative. We all know he has no intention of delivering on all those "conservative promises" like drilling for oil, stopping illegal immigration, and tax cuts for the middle class. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! In fact Obama plans to use Executive Orders to kill drilling, and un-do a bunch of Bush EO's. We'll know what we're in for when he executes that power. But don't hold your breath for all BHO's "rule from the center" baloney. He has a mandate from America to go hard left. A man with absolutely no experience and a chip on his shoulder like Obama has - doesn't run for President without knowing exactly what he plans to do. If you don't know what his plans are, just read his books. It's complete Marxism. I hope he does it all, so Americans can all see right away what a BIG MISTAKE they made. I want America to suffer through all 4 years of Obama's Presidency with the full knowledge of that lapse in judgement.

Republicans had better use the time to get their heads right, and I mean "RIGHT". Get back to Reaganism. Put NEWT in as head of the National Republican Party. Find and promote candidates who are committed to REAGANISM!!! They have to articulate what McCain could not or wished not to. Conservatism wins. "Democrat light" is a LOSER!
Learn it, Love it, LIVE IT.

Posted by: scott on November 10, 2008 10:30 AM
26. Hinton,

You have a good point. I know plenty of very bright, very successful non-caucasians who would vote GOP if the party took the time to talk to them. Here is a perfect example: A good friend is a young Indian doctor that became a US citizen a few years ago. He was not a huge follower of US politics, but his other social associations convinced him he should vote Dem. I, of course, argued the opposite, but the arguments on the other side were much louder. In the end, though, he (says he) voted McCain and Rossi. Why? First, because I challenged him with a list of individual positions (self-reliance, secret ballots for unions, smaller government, fiscal prudence + assorted lefty positions) and asked which reflected his views. With the exception of a few social issues (abortion for rape/incest, etc.), he ended up squarely in the GOP column.

The GOP has an image problem. The left HAD an image problem until Obama (and his consultants) figured it out.

Who better represents the ideals of self-reliance and accomplishment more than some of our new, legal immigrants? But poor positioning (and loudmouth hard right politicians and their supporters) makes immigrants think the GOP hates ALL immigration.

And that is just one issue.

Take "offshoring." The Left hammers us with it. Why not turn that around and position it as "we used to give lots of free money -- our tax dollars -- to struggling nations. Now, we're 'teaching them to fish.' It not only weans them from the financial help, but also gives us something in return."

Posted by: The Real Mark on November 10, 2008 10:31 AM
27. Re commie kid @ 3 You're wrong again... as usual.

In fact, there has been virtually no change to the percentage of folks claiming to be liberal or conservative in their political ideology since 2004.

Here are the relevant numbers (2004 here and 2008 here):

21 percent claimed to be liberal in 2004 versus 22 percent in 2008

34 percent claimed to be conservative in both 2004 and

As recently as 2007 Twice as Many Americans Conservative as Liberal.

Also I found it interesting when I read that many of the voters (and no, there was no increase in voter turnout) were completely ignorant of the fact that the demcraps have been in charge of congress for the last 2 years.

I guess they'll know now, won't they?

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 10, 2008 10:31 AM
28. I've been reading comments here and on other sites that keep trying to claim McCain didn't win because he wasn't conservative enough. Give me a break.

No time to get into detailed response right now; but will note Real Mark made some good points on this thread. And Hinton is right about WA NOT getting more caucasian (nobody is going to win future elections in either WA or nationally appealing just to older white men).

I believe it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who said that somewhere in the middle of the road is where you have to drive politically in this country; go far right or far left and you end up in the ditch. As I believe Eric mentioned in another thread, the middle that needs to be targeted for (R)s to be successful politically are those (R)s and (I)s that are fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and strong on national security. As per above: Ellen Craswell (and John Carlson) got swamped by Gary Locke. No matter how earnestly they deliver their message, there was not and is not any chance that someone like Ellen Craswell will win an election for Gov. in WA as currently constituted. ZERO.

On a positive note; and as somewhat of a take-off on above by Hinton:
One of the most under-reported stories of this election in WA is the fact that (R)s GAINED in the Legislature. How they pulled that off has to be a case worth studying, of how to win even in a year where the other party has a national tidal-wave at their back. Kudos to the Legislators who pulled that off.

Posted by: Methow Ken on November 10, 2008 10:36 AM
29. Real mark @18:
No I am not saying I agreed with Obama more than McCain. Nor did I help Obama get elected. I did not vote for either of them.

Posted by: Lysander on November 10, 2008 10:38 AM
30. Real Mark - You have a good point on the GOP Image. We got killed on immigration. We can't just be "anti-illegal immigration". We have to be able to stop the flow into this country by promoting better conditions in other countries so they will have jobs there. Help them have no reason to leave. The Democrat protectionist anti-NAFTA positions should be easy to defeat if we frame the debate in this way.

Posted by: scott on November 10, 2008 10:39 AM
31. The one reason McCain is not president right now is because when the economy collapsed he came rushing in to promote a massive government bailout when 90% of the public wanted no such thing. He not only showed he was anti free market, he showed he is so anti free market he was willing to suspend his campaign and throw away his principles against earmarks to make sure free markets are not allowed to prevail.

Just imagine if our nominee was a candidate that truly believed in free markets, had a track record to show it, understood the economy and came out defending them at our nations time of need instead of what McCain did. he would have easily skated into the white house.

Posted by: Lysander on November 10, 2008 10:42 AM
32. You had conservatives all over the country voting Obama. Not because he isn't Bush, but because Republicans for the last 8-10 yrs have proven that they cannot lead as conservatives. Not that conservatism is a bad idea, just that once in office they can't help themselves with spending what isn't theirs. At least Democrats have no bones about telling us they are going to spend a boatload (cargo ships full) of our money, increase govt., etc.

There is nothing more simple than that. Republicans proved themselves, once a majority, to be exactly like dems when it came to spending and govt. programs. McCain would so obviously have done the exact same thing and spending has been so abhorrently unchecked that people have no confidence in voting for him. McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy. Come on. He wasn't even close to a conservative candidate. Nobody believed he would be so they voted for somebody else.

Posted by: MrRcguy on November 10, 2008 10:49 AM
33. RD @ 27

Bear in mind that, using the same CNN stats, there was a significant drop in self-identified Republicans from 39% to 32%. The real issue would be to see the crosstab of party by ideology. Also -- and this is inexcusable -- there was 20% defection of "conservatives" that voted for Obama.

The thing to remember is that both sides need to peel off a big chunk of "moderates" or "independents" to win a big election. There is no way to do that by going hard left or hard right.

Posted by: The Real Mark on November 10, 2008 10:50 AM
34. #31: "The one reason McCain is not president right now is because when the economy collapsed he came rushing in to promote a massive government bailout when 90% of the public wanted no such thing."

If McCain had instead proposed a gigantic works program and bailout for those making under $100,000 a year and ignored Wall Street entirely...he would be President.

Posted by: John Bailo on November 10, 2008 10:53 AM
35. I agree about the Republican image and while we may be responsible for a part of that, you have to consider the degree to which the MSM has pushed that image. We immediately need to figure out how to counter the media. We can no longer let them define our image and our positions on the issues. Unless we can do this, the party is doomed to fail.

We also need to develop a program to educate voters on the issues, assuming, of course, that ALL voters are COMPLETELY uninformed about every issue. Also need to start getting some young Republicans (with the X factor would help a lot) into the public arena so that when they're ready to run for office, they don't start with zero name recognition. But we still need the media strategy first.

Posted by: Paula on November 10, 2008 11:01 AM
36. I'm not going to get into arguing with those who are so clearly detached from rational analysis; but just ONCE I will stipulate:

To Lysander @ #29 and all others who claim they did not help elect Obama because they didn't vote for him: It is obvious on its face that every missing vote for McCain added to Obama's margin.

And Lysander again @ #31:
The ''one reason'' he gave for McCain not winning is probably close to the BOTTOM of the list.

Ron Paul would have beat Obama and ''easily skated into the White House'' ??.. It's hard to come up with adequate words to characterize the level of deep-space delusion and detachment from ''politics is the art of the possible'' represented by that statement.

Posted by: Methow Ken on November 10, 2008 11:07 AM
37. @27: Re commie kid @ 3 You're wrong again... as usual.

At best, you're partisan. At worst, you're an idiot. Cherry-picking from a conservative website isn't "proof". Two great books that are out now, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State and The Big Sort provide MUCH more information about demographic trends than what you've provided.

First, one thing that is VERY obvious is that the electorate is not as "conservative" OR as "liberal" as party hardliners would like. This post provides some great graphics from the 2006 midterms:

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/07/leftright_ideology_of_voters_c.html

Likewise, control of the White House is STRONGLY affected by economic factors:

http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/?p=185

except with the elections in 1952, 1968, and 2000, for very specific reasons: Eisenhower's status as a war hero, Democratic infighting about Vietnam, and Monica Lewinsky.

What does this tell me? The Republicans have two possible strategies for winning back control of the White House and Congress. The first is to sabotage the economy and pass the blame to the Democrats. That wouldn't be very patriotic or honest of course, but it would be a dose of realpolitik to wrest control.

The second? Hit that middle. Democrats have done a much better job with making inroads into traditionally conservative/centrist areas than Republicans have with traditionally liberal/centrist ones, by bringing on board candidates that are pro-life (Reid, Kaine) and pro-gun (Schweitzer). A nationwide Obama swing was responsible for bringing him into power, but a longer-term solution will involve making key inroads into communities by softening on certain key positions. Choosing fiscal conservatism over wedge social issues, for example, would be much better at appealing to a broader range of people than a Sisyphean task of eroding abortion rights.

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 11:10 AM
38. Ken:
I did not vote for Obama.
I did not vote for McCain.

So please explain how this translates to:
I supported Obama and did not support McCain.

Posted by: Lysander on November 10, 2008 11:12 AM
39. Image is everything. It belies the quote of Eisenhower when you consider that Obama was far more to the left of center than McCain was to the right of center. The problem was, the population either did not perceive Obama to be so far to the left or they were really swayed by the promises and image presented of Obama irrespective of his position. Either way, it is not a good testimony to the election process. People bought into an image. Not to the ideology of the person, not to the qualifications of the person, but to an image of what the person represented in their minds. THAT is what wins elections. That is why negative advertising has such an impact, but it is a two edged weapon. If people believe the attack, the attacked candidate loses. If they do not like the attack, the attacking candidate is damaged. But ultimately, people seem to vote for an image.

Maybe I should soften that statement and say the middle seems to respond that way. The yellow dog democrats vote for a D, and the hard core conservatives vote for the conservative. (I do not believe that most conservatives vote party but "conservative", while Dems seems to vote party more than "liberal", but I could be wrong.)

The point is, the delivery is more important than the substance, but the substance is still a part of it. That is why the media is important. They can influence things quite a bit, but they are not all powerful as evidenced by the failures to get Reagan, and Bush defeated. I think that the Republican candidate does come in with a media handicap but does have an ideological advantage (Nationally anyway. In our state the Republican has a double handicap), so it is important to have candidates that can inspire. Obama could inspire, McCain could not.

Posted by: Eyago on November 10, 2008 11:35 AM
40. Two things we need to avoid as a party: first is to make sure these Ron Paul wackos don't get a hold of any party leadership positions (especially at the state level) and second, make sure we don't make the same mistake that we did in 1964 and that is nominate a candidate that was so out of touch with the electorate that we lose by 400+electoral votes.

Look, the reason we lost was because we got away from being the party of efficient governance. We used to pride ourselves on running a lean, clean government. We would work to reform the systems that the liberals implemented, we would find free market solutions and because we operated the government so well, we were able to cut taxes. R's never cut taxes and increased spending...people trusted R's to govern. Now, we over spend, we're wrought with corruption, we expand government (Medicare plan D), lets get back to basics. You cannot win if you run around saying you want to do away with the intelligence community, shrink the military, tie the dollar to gold, do away with abortion, never offer any safety nets for the poor, not come up with a creative health care plan that can tie in free market principles yet make sure the most vulnerable in society are taken care of, and offer no solutions for the environment.

If you want a party of old people, go to the hard right, call anyone who doesn't agree with you a ragging liberal and see what happens. If you want people under 60 to vote Republican than come up with plans to counter liberalism on the issue Americans care about. Don't just say cut taxes, outlaw abortion, there is no such think as global warming and poor people need to get a job, won't work.

Posted by: jk on November 10, 2008 11:37 AM
41. JK@40:
I could not disagree more.
1. The Ron Paul supporters were the only wing of the republicans with any life and youth in their campaign this year. Why would you want to exclude them? Especially if you do not want a party of old people. It seems Ron Pauls hard core right positions on the economy not only are right but they attract young people far more than McCains program of bailouts and earmarks.

2. Goldwater may have lost the battle but the reagan revolution was a direct result of his campaign. Hopefully Ron Pauls failed primary run will result in an even better revolution.

3. the GOP has never been successful being the part of efficient government. Look at Rossi, that is all he ran on and he lost even while the state legislature picked up seats for the GOP.

4. If you want to merely reform the liberal programs the democrats and republicans have introduced, then by all means vote for McCain or Obama, but how about you leave us a party to offer the people an alternative... such as eliminating failed liberal social programs?

Posted by: Lysander on November 10, 2008 11:46 AM
42. Things President Bush gets credit for: Tax cuts and good supreme court appointments. Big deals both. When American targets were hit by terrorists in the 90's Clinton did nothing, emboldening the bad guys. When they finally hit here again in 2001, President Bush did anything but sit there and take it. He's a good man with a good heart. I like his refusal to coddle terrorists. I doubt we'll see that kind of resolve in the next four years.

Posted by: Michele on November 10, 2008 11:53 AM
43. @40: I absolutely agree. I think that you've stated very well what Jindal has also expressed, and while I have personal objections to some of that, I can objectives say that it is a much better strategy than others proposed.

@41: Ron Paul will be about as successful at starting a revolution as Ralph Nader, and saying that you want to tap into the zeal of his supporters is akin to any reasonable political party trying to think about how to get the local LaRouche followers into their campaigns.

Face it... Paul is not attractive to a broad base of young people like Obama was in this last election. For the Republicans to succeed, they need to target issues that young folks care about, and do more than to just blame those problems on dirty hippies or the unwashed masses.

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 11:55 AM
44. @42: For every one of you that drools that way over Bush, there are three of us that really don't.

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 11:59 AM
45. 'He's a good man with a good heart.'

I too believe that to be a true statement.

Posted by: Duffman on November 10, 2008 12:01 PM
46. "The problem was, the population either did not perceive Obama to be so far to the left or they were really swayed by the promises and image presented of Obama irrespective of his position."

I hate to beat a dead horse, but the reason the population did not perceive Obama to be so far to the left is that they are woefully uninformed. I would be willing to bet the majority of those who voted for him had very little knowledge of his positions on any issue.

Wake up! Until we can educate the electorate we're going to continue to get unacceptable results.

Posted by: Paula on November 10, 2008 12:10 PM
47. #36: You say:

"I'm not going to get into arguing with those who are so clearly detached from rational analysis"

and yet:

"Ron Paul would have beat Obama"

Rational analysis? Man, call the mothership...time to leave the planet, Paulians.

Posted by: John Bailo on November 10, 2008 12:12 PM
48. Oh, and I forgot to mention...two different kinds of uninformed voters. First kind, the ones that have absolutely no information on issues and candidates. Second kind, the ones that are misinformed due to reliance on MSM. There probably needs to be 2 different strategies to reach them.

Posted by: Paula on November 10, 2008 12:17 PM
49. @41- Paul's "youth movement" was very small. You were EXTREMELY VOCAL but no where near the numbers you need to create a base of wide support.

" the GOP has never been successful being the part of efficient government. Look at Rossi, that is all he ran on and he lost even while the state legislature picked up seats for the GOP."

True he lost this time, but he won using this issue 4 years ago. (yes, I said he won)I believe in "normal election years" this is a winning issue, Rossi got caught up in the Obama wave and some dirty campaigning.

And to your last point, which government program will Americas allow us to do away with? SS hell no, Medicare - not gonna happen, medicaid -nope.
I can see reforming all of these but to do away with them, not gonna happen.

The good news is that the GOP has a good bench of governors. That is where we find presidents and the GOP is (usually) good at running things. I see us back to where we were in the 70's and 80's the party of Presidents and governors, clean government and strong military.

Posted by: jk on November 10, 2008 12:23 PM
50. Good comments by Eyago @ #39... Although I would gently disagree with ''Image is everything''; at least it shouldn't be. However, in the race 4 Pres this year I WILL agree that image played a much bigger role than it usually does.

Style, oratory, and presentation skills over substance: Another way to say that uneducated democracy can be dangerous.
But I will still be interested to see the level of disappointment experienced by the (D) netroots far-left, when they finally have to face the fact that even their hero President-elect Obama cannot deliver NEARLY every ''progressive'' dream on their wish list. With less than 60 votes in the US Senate (especially counting Sen. Joe L. on national security issues), the (D)s will still not be able to exercise absolute control of the national government.

Posted by: Methow Ken on November 10, 2008 12:24 PM
51. Paula - most voters get their daily news from 2 sources:

* Network TV news
* Web news off ISP portals(AOL, Netscape, etc...) which usually have the same links to CNN.com which is the same as getting your news from the networks

So basically it is a case of LIV. 90% of them do not read blogs.

Posted by: Crusader on November 10, 2008 12:27 PM
52. At best, you're partisan. At worst, you're an idiot. Cherry-picking from a conservative website isn't "proof". -Posted by demo kid at November 10, 2008 11:10 AM


Stats from CNN are "conservtive"... I'll keep that in mind.

Nice try.

For every one of you that drools that way over Bush, there are three of us that really don't. -Posted by demo kid at November 10, 2008 11:59 AM

Ditto, baby bear-y the toddler president.

I just don't understand why you liberal kiddies who got every single thing you whined for are not satisfied.

Oh I got it, like the tantrum pre-schooler, you have no concept of magnanimity or fulfillment, like the tantrum pre-schooler you always want something else.

These next TWO years will be fun to watch.

The toddler pres now has to stand and DELIVER.

I hope he does.
I doubt he will.

And with every stumble the rainbow farting unicorn makes, every promise baby bear-y breaks we will gleefully enumerate them and hold YOU accountable.

To paraphrase Jimmy Buffet: 'You all wanted him, you all got him, now what are you going to do with him??'.

I am almost giddy that the pressure is now off the GOP by virtue of the fact it belongs 100% to the democraps. We can't do anything so we can no wrong. We can however benefit from every single decision and misstep they make.

HOOAH! Bring it on, kiddies.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 10, 2008 12:34 PM
53. JK @49:

You call Pauls youth movement small, yet it was 100X larger than McCains. Hmm... As for creating a large base... Look what size base McCain built with no one really even interested in him or his ideas. Ron Paul would have had a HUGE base had he been the candidate when the economy melted since he is still one of the few that is echoing what the people were/are saying "no bailout".

As for programs the american people would not mind elliminating...

Dept energy and dept of education for starters. They are relative new comers that provide very little of anything.

Rossi lost this year and arguably barely won last time. If he had won either time we would still have every single government program we have now. Either way we would not have a smaller government. And the next liberal would simply increase spending just like we saw with Gregoire. making something efficient helps for a day. Cutting government helps for decades.

Posted by: Lysander on November 10, 2008 12:51 PM
54. @36 Ken

Obama got 57.45% of the vote in WA
McCain got 40.73%

The sum of ALL OTHER CANDIDATES was 1.81%

Do the math. When Republicans run some one that will curtail spending, lower taxes, and leave me alone otherwise, I will vote for them.

Note also in my post above @8 that I indicated that I would have held my nose and voted McCain had there been a chance of him taking WA state. There wasn't and the numbers show it.

Posted by: Dantzler on November 10, 2008 12:53 PM
55. @51: So basically it is a case of LIV. 90% of them do not read blogs.

People that read blogs are NOT "high information voters". I'd classify them as "meaningless information voters".

@52: You're still a mind-numbing example of complete stupidity. Assuming that liberalism and conservatism are completely defined by any kind of tax cuts is off-base. Not only that, but you haven't addressed a thing I said about the composition of this country and how it relates to political parties (backed up by more thorough analysis), choosing instead to wallow in your own clueless fantasies about the way the world works.

Ditto, baby bear-y the toddler president.

As far as I can tell, Obama has approval ratings two to three times as high as Bush.

And the other stuff? Man, you're a bitter, bitter fellow. Cheering for the decline of the US is just a damn shame, especially when you preface it with the insincere "I hope he will [succeed]."

All I have to say is that I'm glad that it seems like someone who is at least trying is going to be in the White House soon enough. Bush just seems like he's coasting through so that he can become baseball commissioner someday.

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 01:38 PM
56. DK: And if he does become baseball commissioner, you will still be blaming for every damn bad thing that ever has and ever will happen in the entire world. Get over it!

Posted by: katomar on November 10, 2008 01:56 PM
57. Crusader, that's my point exactly. We need an outlet that's accessible to everyone, especially the least motivated. Meaning spoon feeding or even tube feeding if need be. And it can't be viewed as a "right-wing" news outlet the way Fox (justifiably or not) is viewed. I'm thinking direct mail but maybe I'm crazy. Like those lame newsletters I get from my state reps. Legislative updates that just report what's going on with no bias.

Posted by: Paula on November 10, 2008 01:59 PM
58. Lysander- Cutting the Department of Education, there is a new idea....a whole lot of people have ran on this issue, most lost and the few that won got no where. Here is an idea for you, move to Texas, vote for Ron Paul all you want. He is a fringe candidate, I know you all are "about the principle" and don't care if you win the election, you want to progress these cockamamie ideas. If you want a seat at the table, come up with rational arguments and ideas. Trying to go back in time to 1787 is noble but won't win in 2008, especially in WA state.

By the way, Paul is no Goldwater, the times are different. When Goldwater ran we had been through 50 years of a liberal government, today we have had 30 years of a center right government. We ran into a wall after the Republicans lost there way with spending and corruption. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, re tool the message put new, younger people in government and we will be fine.

Posted by: jk on November 10, 2008 02:22 PM
59. @56: What? My point is that even in terms of lame duck presidents, Bush is turning out to be one of the lamest. Virtually the only thing that he's doing well right now is putting together a strong transition team, which makes it seem like he's more looking to retire than actually doing his job.

But let me ask you... two to three years after Clinton and Carter left office, they founded philanthropic organizations. (Clinton is still involved in some shady things on the side, of course, but McCain thought enough of the Clinton Global Initiative to speak at a meeting before he suspended his campaign.) Nixon and Ford stayed active in certain things, and Bush I has even done a little bit of charity work (but seems more content to fish and golf in Kennebunkport). But what kind of post-presidential contribution do you think that Bush might make? Will he be that noble statesman that many conservatives like to think he'll be, or will he just squander his status as an ex-president? Two years ago, when he was asked about his legacy, he said:

First, Mr. Bush said, "I'll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol' coffers." With assets that have been estimated as high as nearly $21 million, Mr. Bush added, "I don't know what my dad gets -- it's more than 50-75" thousand dollars a speech, and "Clinton's making a lot of money."

Then he said, "We'll have a nice place in Dallas," where he will be running what he called "a fantastic Freedom Institute" promoting democracy around the world. But he added, "I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch."

Like what RD said above, I hope that he does succeed with some kind of grand notion like a "Freedom Center", but I doubt he will. Ex-Presidents have a lot of power and the freedom to use it, and they can get some things done. But I just fear that he's going to take this great gift and use it for... well... nothing. Only time will tell, and what he does when he isn't required to do anything is how you will be able to truly measure his character.

@57: Like the Obama spam system the White House is looking to set up, perhaps? Seems like conservatives are behind with that one.

Also, ANYONE can talk about how they just need to educate the voters more. That's not the point. The point is how you can make the message mean something to them.

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 02:38 PM
60. DK: See? You just can't help it. You are already slamming anything he does or doesn't do after his term. As I said, just give it a rest. He's done. Celebrate a little if that makes you feel better, but you need to get over the BDS. It's making you look "not with the times".

Posted by: katomar on November 10, 2008 03:10 PM
61. You're absurd. It's not some kind of mythical "BDS" to be pessimistic about his post-presidency plans. (Or are you getting information that the rest of us are not?) Same goes for his reaction to the current economic crisis.

But hey, I'm open to be proven wrong... unlike the wingnuts here that seem to invent new and even more tortuous ways to justify their perspectives.

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 03:15 PM
62. DK: On January 20th, Bush is gone. Get it? You're becoming not only annoying, but irrelevant.

Posted by: katomar on November 10, 2008 03:22 PM
63. @63: On January 20th, Bush is gone. Get it? You're becoming not only annoying, but irrelevant.

I guess I have ONE thing in common with our soon to be ex-president. :)

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 03:25 PM
64. @62: Looks like I have at least ONE thing in common with our soon-to-be ex-president, then!

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 03:26 PM
65. Oops... didn't think that first one went through!

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 03:59 PM
66. Oh, so you're going to be gone January 20th too? Cool!

Posted by: katomar on November 10, 2008 04:52 PM
67. "As far as I can tell, Obama has approval ratings two to three times as high as Bush."

Yeah... kinda like Bush 2 or 3 times higher than the democrat-controlled Congress. I see what you mean.

Posted by: Hinton on November 10, 2008 05:36 PM
68. I guess I'm a troll here, but let me ask -- why didn't conservatives start complaining about Bush not being one of their own until recently. You could have done all of us a great service by criticizing him much, much sooner.

Posted by: twodogs on November 10, 2008 06:20 PM
69. @12: The nation is socially conservative -- even in California homosexual marriage was defeated.

I think you're cherry-picking your data. What do you make of the rejected abortion bans in South Dakota (twice!) and in Colorado? Twelve states have decriminalized marijuana. Oregon and Washington have assisted suicide laws, passed by ballot initiative.

The nation might socially conservative about gay marriage, but appears to be getting less so about other things. And American demographic trends are not kind to gay marriage opponents: a majority of young Americans are in favor of it.

It appears as though the best hope for gay marriage opponents is continued immigration from countries more socially conservative than ours.

Posted by: JohnA on November 10, 2008 06:37 PM
70. demo kid:

Talk about becoming more conservative all you want, but Democrats will run the table if you start to abandon the middle.

Conservatism does not abandon the middle.

John Bailo:

Conservatism was rejected -- not Republicanism. ... People want personal freedom and the power to succeed.

Those two sentences do not agree with each other.

Posted by: pudge on November 10, 2008 06:43 PM
71. @67: Yeah... kinda like Bush 2 or 3 times higher than the democrat-controlled Congress.

Two years of control, stymied by an absolutely absurd amount of filibustering on the part of the Senate.

Not to mention, of course, that the Democrats made significant gains with the public. People may be frustrated with Congress, but they don't place the blame with the Democrats.

@68: Yes, on here you're a troll for asking honest questions. Be prepared to be called a Marxist. :)

But to be honest, any attempt to rule as a centrist is seen as a betrayal. Republicans want Republican presidents to govern 30% of the country, not 100% of it.

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 06:45 PM
72. Re the commie @ 55... you fool ...of course I hope he succeeds: IT'S MY COUNTRY. Unlike the liberals who were more vested in Bush failing, conservatives want whats best for the whole. We simply doubt that baby bear-y can deliver it. baby bear-y is one little man: we survived the peanuts president, we survived the penis president and we'll mange to survive the toddler Marxist. For you to imagine otherwise speaks volumes more about your narrow mindset than anything else. What a sad example of an American you are.

And of course baby bear-y's rating are higher than Bush's, you dimwit: he hasn't had to make any tough decsions yet. Like a student in a new term, he's starting at an A, it's his job to keep it. We'll see,

It's also telling that YOU get to dismiss future post-presidential work by Bush while knowing absolutely NOTHING about his plans but accuse others for the same attitude for a guy with far less background. Well, screw you. And frankly I wouldn't blame Bush if that's exactly what he said to you protected yet ungrateful bunch of whiners... actually I'd stand and applaud if he did. I expect (and hope) Bush Sr to dump the penis pres to work with his son on philanthropic causes WITH HONOR rather than a pants half mast embarassment.

In the meantime, I see that you and your pals are suffering from a severe case of post election vacuum.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 10, 2008 09:03 PM
73. baby bear-y's gonna have to grow up fast.

Al Qaida urges Obama to embrace Islam
November 10, 2008

Blockquote>A spokesman for the terrorist group Al Qaida in Iraq has released a videotape message calling upon American president-elect Barack Obama to accept the rise of Islam and withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The conciliatory video message offers a promise that if the incoming US administration takes that approach, Islamic groups will not disrupt the oil supply.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 10, 2008 09:09 PM
74. Well, I read most of the posts or at least scanned them for key words, and out of all of them I did not see a single post from a conservative that said; "we should do what the Democrats did... ie. turn on our troops, do everything possible to lose the war and embolden our terrorist enemies, wreck the economy, undermine the President and in the process discredit the USA's standing in the world.

STILL PROUD TO BE A CONSERVATIVE!

Posted by: scott on November 10, 2008 09:42 PM
75. @72: And frankly I wouldn't blame Bush if that's exactly what he said to you protected yet ungrateful bunch of whiners... actually I'd stand and applaud if he did.

Which testifies more to what you think about this country than anything else. I always get suspicious when folks like you start calling people that disagree with you "ungrateful". And the idea that you'd applaud Bush if he told this country to stuff it... well... you're a sad and twisted little man.

I expect (and hope) Bush Sr to dump the penis pres to work with his son on philanthropic causes WITH HONOR rather than a pants half mast embarassment.

We'll see. Interesting that you'd consider tsunami relief and addressing HIV in Africa "without honor".

In the meantime, I see that you and your pals are suffering from a severe case of post election vacuum.

Behind the curve, genius. I actually posted that here myself a little while ago. :) Unlike conservatives, though, I can actually take a joke... as long as it's funny.

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 09:58 PM
76. @74: And still proud to be remarkably deluded little twit that confuses opposition with treachery. Truly a small mind.

Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 10:05 PM
77. This is what the Republicans must do to be taken seriously again:

1. Become the party of small government again. For example how long has that complete waste of money, the Department of Education, resisted Republican efforts to abolish it? The last time I checked the DOE had a 60 billion dollar budget! And this is only a small part of vast government waste.

2. Become the party of free enterprise again. I mean laissez-faire capitalism. Start by renouncing that Sarbanes-Oxley abomination to capitalism.

3. Quit pandering to religion. Christian, Jewish and Muslim. Until God appears in the sky overhead, act if if he doesn't exist. Insist religion be entirely a private matter.

4. Leave the abortion issue alone. No one that I have heard of in this country if getting forced abortions. This is a matter between a woman and her doctor.

5. Learn how to fight a war again. George Bush has given war a bad name. We do not fight wars to bring "democracy" to savages. We fight wars to destroy our enemies and then leave them to their fate with the admonition "shape up or we'll be back again". No war should last more than a year or so if we fight properly unless it is against the Islamofacists. Then it shouldn't last more than a month or so.

6. Boldly proclaim that Israel is our friend and stop treating her like a pariah. Israel is a island of civilization in the Mideast.

7. Advocate the destruction of a nuclear Islamic Iran. Not just a bombing of their nuclear facilities but an ousting of the mullahs and a de-Islamification of the country.

Posted by: Bill K. on November 10, 2008 10:09 PM
78. Which testifies more to what you think about this country than anything else. I always get suspicious when folks like you start calling people that disagree with you "ungrateful". And the idea that you'd applaud Bush if he told this country to stuff it... well... you're a sad and twisted little man.

Bullshit. You elitists, sore losers and rotten winners have beaten up on that man for 8 long years. You have called him a Nazi, a murderer, a chimp, an incompetant and an idiot. You've accused him of an untold number of things, you've ridiculed his wife, mocked his children and insulted his mother. He has every RIGHT to say 'I'm done, I'm going fishing'. I wouldn't blame him. In as much as he has more class, he won't.

We'll see. Interesting that you'd consider tsunami relief and addressing HIV in Africa "without honor".

Bullshit. I consider the pants at half mast penis pres without honor, not his DEEDS, as self agrandizing as they are and which happen to dovetail nicely with his speaking engagements and fees for them.

I can actually take a joke... as long as it's funny.

You can, you have and you will: it's called the party of the majority.

The overreaching, the broken promises, the stuttering, the posturing, the realization of the snookered little people that the unicorn indeed does not fart rainbows will be entertaining to watch.

Remember: WE have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

The converse is true for you. Think 1994.

I have complete confidence in the democraps and their complete ability to screw up.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 10, 2008 11:52 PM
79. Bill K.

I agree with you on many of your point.

However, point 4 in particular is grossly illogical. Every abortion is forced on someone: the life in the womb.

The abortion issue IS NOT going away. Period. Stop asking for it, because it will never happen. Fine, YOU think abortion should be a "private" matter, but it never will be, because the people who oppose it -- and they are legion -- think of it as an evil greater than slavery.

Slavery took away the right to liberty of some people, favoring the right to property of another. Abortion takes away the right to life of some people, favoring the right to liberty of another. But rights flow upward: the right to life is greater than the right to liberty is greater than the right to property.

You may not believe that the life in the womb has rights. But those of us who do, believe that it is the obligation of government to secure the rights of all people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Government exists to protect my rights, your rights, and the rights of every human. Including the life in the womb.

Abortion is not going away. You're wasting your time and effort and energy trying to make it go away.

Posted by: pudge on November 11, 2008 04:52 AM
80. Oh, Bill K., I should explain a little bit why it is illogical, I kindof just implied it.

You are asking us to drop the abortion issue because it hurts no one who doesn't engage in it of their own free will. But we reject that argument, so your argument becomes the question-begging fallacy. We reject the notion that abortion is a private matter BECAUSE we believe the life in the womb has rights and value. So you can't ask us to accept that it is a private matter based on a claim we reject, that it has no rights nor value.

That said, I do agree that the Republican Party would do well to de-emphasize pretty much every OTHER social issue in its platform, for the same reason. While we can argue about the societal merits of gay marriage and drug legalization and so on, these are activities that do not directly harm others, as abortion, in our view, does.

Posted by: pudge on November 11, 2008 05:02 AM
81. You Republicans are hopeless.
Once again, get a clue.
A majority of Americans are against "Free Trade"
http://www.pollingreport.com/trade.htm

And once again, Bush is showing the one of the reasons people dislike him.
In a meeting with Obama, Bush said that he would consider saving the auto industry if Obama promoted free trade with Columbia.
Let me see, Obama wants to save hundreds of thousands of jobs and Bush want to export more jobs to Columbia.

Posted by: M&M on November 11, 2008 10:09 AM
82. Save your insults for someone who gives a crap about what you think Demo. There is no delusion in what I said. It's documented. Harry Reid "the war is lost", ditto Nancy Pelosi. Traitor Murtha; "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood"
(Murtha, May 19, 2006)

"They actually went into the houses and killed women and children. And there was about twice as many as originally reported by Times."
(Murtha, Reuters, May 19, 2006)

"Our troops over-reacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
(Murtha, ARAB WORLD NEWS, May 19, 2006)

He was actually sued by some of the defendants in the trial who were completely exonerated.

Democrats put party before Country as a matter of policy. It's not even something sane people have to wonder about. Only people living in liberal la la land even try to deny this.

Posted by: scott on November 11, 2008 11:47 AM
83. Re M&M (Mao & Marx??)

BUSH ANGER: OBAMA AIDES LEAK CHAT DETAILS...

"Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel," a top Bush source warned.

"Senator Obama may not be familiar with a long-standing tradition of presidents holding their private conversations, private," a senior adviser explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.

Attention seeking toddlers strike again.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 11, 2008 12:57 PM
84. All this talk about "hard right" and "hard left" is silly.

The voters are looking for a party of limited government, less spending and lower taxes combined with a message of optimism. that is what Reagan delivered. Call it what you want, but this is a principled message that will win.

The GOP used to be that party but it has lost its way. Until we return to our roots as the party of limited government, less spending and lower taxes - Until we can articulate this message in a context, not of fear, but of hope and faith in the American spirit, we are lost.

If you call that "hard right" then so be it. The reality is that the country hasn't changed that much since 1984 when Reagan won 49 states. It is the GOP that has changed. If I want a big government party, I'll vote Dem. If I want a small government party, there is currently nowhere for me to turn. McCain? Please!

We need to return the GOP to its small government roots, not just nationally, but at the local level as well. We can start by electing new county leadership at the reorg meetings across the state. Only when this happens will we have any hope of electoral success.

Posted by: Matt on November 11, 2008 12:57 PM
85. for fucks sake, I thought I'd never agree with demo kid, but this one is right on the money:

But that's the lesson here. Conservatives cannot win in 50 states if their party takes a very strong collective right-wing stance, both on social policy and on fiscal matters. The country is, as a whole, centrist, being slightly to the right on fiscal issues and slightly to the left on social ones. (With some regional exceptions, and the ability to be pulled based on appeals to nonpartisan "common sense".) Appeal to the base in whichever way you can, but you cannot lose sight of the fact that you need to capture that middle. You need to attract folks that aren't going to take a shift to the right very well unless you can explain in much better, less abstract terms about how the Republicans will do a better job representing their interests.

He's right about the country being a little right on fiscal policy and a little left on social policy. That is exactly why a Republican party focussed on small government, lower taxes, individual liberty and creating opportunity rather than controlling outcomes is the way to another majority.

Fiscal policies that are right of center but can still appeal to the left if they are based in liberty and not social control:


  • lowering taxes...I'd love to see another push for a flat tax...just look at how well the flat tax is working in eastern Europe.

  • privatizing social security. let's just adopt the Chilean model, it works and works well.

  • reducing government spending both foreign and domestic. the only way to lower taxes significantly would be to cut the size of the federal government drastically. that means shutting down departments, reducing our global military presence, and ending the entitlements system through privatization. we could shut down the entire IRS just by switching to a flat tax.

Small government and liberty based social policies tend to land a little left of center but can still appeal to the right if they are based in liberty instead of social control:


  • decriminalize possession of narcotics and begin treating drug addiction like we do alcohol and nicotine addiction. at the same time, we'd also have to toughen the punishments for not being responsible: long jail sentences for driving under the influence, etc.

  • after decriminalizing, release all of the non-violent drug offenders from prison. this will not only drastically cut the number of people in jail, but it will also reduce government spending on incarceration at all levels so that we can reduce taxes.

  • at the state level, we need to deregulate the fundamentally religious practice of marriage. strike from the books all laws regarding marriage and replace them with civil contract agreements between two people. this prevents "marriage" from being redefined while at the same time creates an equal legal status for same-sex couples. people can still get "married" in their church just like they can get baptized, the state doesn't care, you just have no legal rights under your new religious status. you must establish those rights through civil legal contracts to share custody, liability, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.

  • deregulate guns. read the 2nd amendment, strike the laws and call it a day.

  • deregulate speech. read the 1st amendment, strike hate speech and censorship laws, grow a thicker skin and call it a day.

  • at the state level, we should revive the push for vouchers again. the problem with government run schools is that the establishment clause forces the schools to take an anti-religion policy which runs counter to most parent's wishes. vouchers would not only establish competition and improve the quality of schools, but it would also create a full spectrum of schools from the very religious to the completely secular. from the arts oriented to the science oriented. currently only the wealthy get have the means for school choice...why should we stand for that? it creates a two tiered society of privilege.

Individual liberty and smaller government is going to be the way to a new conservative majority. It lies down the road of defending the freedom of conscience and choice (school choice, religious marriage) for those of faith, while bolstering equal protection (legal status for gay couples) and restoring America to being the land of opportunity (rolling back the socialism we're about to receive from on high).

As long as the federal government remains big with a disproportionately large amount of control on our daily lives and liberties, the stakes will remain high for subsequent elections. It makes me wonder how much more control the federal government needs to take before the losing side resorts to violence. I'm pretty sure that if Obama hadn't won last week, there would have been violent protests and possibly riots. So I think we're dangerously flirting with that line now.

If we really want to make a brighter future for everybody, we desperately need to scale back the federal government to within it's constitutional bounds. We know the 16 powers congress is allowed to exercise per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. We need to once again use that as a litmus test for all new laws and politicians.

Posted by: blindman on November 11, 2008 01:58 PM
86. Pudge said:

You are asking us to drop the abortion issue because it hurts no one who doesn't engage in it of their own free will. But we reject that argument, so your argument becomes the question-begging fallacy. We reject the notion that abortion is a private matter BECAUSE we believe the life in the womb has rights and value. So you can't ask us to accept that it is a private matter based on a claim we reject, that it has no rights nor value.

That said, I do agree that the Republican Party would do well to de-emphasize pretty much every OTHER social issue in its platform, for the same reason. While we can argue about the societal merits of gay marriage and drug legalization and so on, these are activities that do not directly harm others, as abortion, in our view, does.

Though I do agree with Pudge in principle, I disagree in practice. I think the GOP should focus on individual liberty and federalism. The social positions then come as a corollary of the liberty/federalism platform. The GOP's primary focus would be on restoring federalism so, as a consequence, would also be against Roe v. Wade. I'm pretty sure that the argument of restoring federalism to de-escalate the culture war has broader appeal than the anti-abortion/pro-life position. The federalism position is one of freedom and trust and the anti-abortion/pro-life position smacks of big government and social control.

Decriminalizing narcotics and releasing non-violent drug offenders from prison are corollary positions of the individual liberty platform. Not only that, but it is one way to cut government spending at all levels of government and passing the savings on to taxpayers as tax cuts. It would appeal to the left and the right. That's called win-win.

Closing down the federal department of education and pushing for voucher programs at the state levels are natural consequences of restoring federalism and promoting liberty and individual choice. Like I hinted at in my post above, the government run school system creates a two-tiered system where the wealthy are the only citizens with the means to give their kids the best educations. That's not why we created the public education system. We wanted to level the playing field, but having government run schools that fail to adequately educate kids only reinforces the class stratification in our society. The answer is to switch to vouchers and let parents control the education market. WA spends over $13,000/year per pupil. Most private schools in WA charge less than that for annual tuition. Only the most elite private schools (The Bush School, Overlake School, etc) charge more.

The way I see it, the real challenge ahead for the GOP is not winning over the left, but winning over the right. The right is so comfortable with the idea of legislating morality that the real fight is within the party. If the liberty crowd ever wins back control of the party, the center and a good portion of the left will come with it.

Posted by: blindman on November 11, 2008 02:22 PM
87. I hope that the Republicans can figure out what they want to be when they grow up. Newt is not the answer for the NRC but a conservative with less baggage who sends a loud message that neo-conservatism does not work - case and point Bush's 22% approval rating. Smaller government and lower taxes sound good on paper, but how will this be accomplished ?

After the last four years of carnage and losing control to the Democrats, they had better get serious about this or continue status quo and remain the minority party. The choice is up to the leadership - the current leadership has let a lot of people down and it will be a while before they can let go of it. There is potential, but it needs to be harnessed - the sooner the better.

Posted by: KS on November 11, 2008 02:38 PM
88. @87 the republicans start closing ranks around a platform of small government (closing federal departments), low taxes (flat tax), and a new liberty-based social policy that includes support for deregulating marriage (civil contracts for legal status of couples), decriminalizing narcotics possession, releasing non-violent drug offenders, and closing the borders.

Posted by: blindman on November 11, 2008 05:47 PM
89. When Democrats lost to Bush, they didn't come right. They went further to the left. They know that being Republican-light wouldn't work for their base. Republicans need to realize the same thing they did. Be MORE of what you were when you were successful. Move RIGHT. Don't leave your success up for interpretation by people comparing two parties, each trying to be like the other. Draw a stark distinction based on what you really believe and let the cards fall where they may. When the truth is told, conservatism wins every time. That didn't happen this election because actual conservatism wasn't even in the picture.

Posted by: scott on November 11, 2008 10:12 PM
90. pudge,

You talk about the "rights" of a fetus in the womb but what about the rights of the woman carrying that fetus? Every person has the right to control the processes of their own body, man or woman. When you propose rights for a fetus you negate the right of a woman to contol her own body.

There are no contradictory rights. One person's rights does not negate anothers. The so-called rights of a fetus would necessarily clash with the real rights rights of the woman. The mistake, of course, is assuming the fetus is a person. The fetus has the potential to develop into a person only if it is carried to term and then born. At this point the baby accquires its rights.


Posted by: Bill K. on November 11, 2008 10:32 PM
91. There were millions who never voted before and they felt disenfranchised. They are not going to vote for a Republican who tells people to pull themselves up from their bootstraps...they've already been dropped through every crack in the sidewalk! Like it or not, for many years, Republicans counted on apathy -- the apathy of people not really caring who their elected leader was...until 2008.

Posted by: John Bailo on November 12, 2008 12:37 AM
92. M&M at 81:
Most americans do not know what free trade is. The GOP and alot of the Democrats keep pushing Mercantalism and calling it Free Trade.

Most americans are opposed to mercantalism and want free trade.

Posted by: Lysander on November 12, 2008 04:01 AM
93. Bill K.:

Every person has the right to control the processes of their own body, man or woman.

Not if it means killing another person.


When you propose rights for a fetus you negate the right of a woman to contol her own body.

False. This shows a misunderstanding of how rights work. I am allowed to swing my fists around. This is my right. I am not allowed to punch your nose. If your nose is within my swinging distance, I am not allowed to swing my fist where your nose happens to be. Does this mean the right to swing my fist is "negated"? Of course not.

Same thing with yelling "fire." I am allowed to do it. I am not allowed to do it in a crowded theater. Being in a crowded theater does not "negate" my right.

In both cases, we recognize that the right of someone to not be harmed supercedes the right of someone else to act freely. But this does not negate any rights, it simply recognizes a hierarchy.


The mistake, of course, is assuming the fetus is a person.

I understand you believe this, but you have no objective basis for this belief, and I disagree with it. Indeed, all objective evidence we have shows it is false.


The fetus has the potential to develop into a person only if it is carried to term and then born.

You obviously have not spent much time around pregnant women. I've played games with "fetuses." I've seen them get angry. To say they are not "persons" just because they have not crosses the arbitrary threshold of the womb is illogical and unintellectual.

Posted by: pudge on November 12, 2008 05:04 AM
94. Pudge:
This shows a misunderstanding of how rights work. I am allowed to swing my fists around. This is my right. I am not allowed to punch your nose

With the above quote in mind, what is your view on legalizing drugs?

Posted by: Lysander on November 12, 2008 05:19 AM
95. I thought I heard something, but ... can't quite place it.

Posted by: pudge on November 12, 2008 05:29 AM
96. Lysander

Have you ever been to a country where drugs are legal?

It's not the paradise you think.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 12, 2008 08:19 AM
97. Bill K: Regarding rights of an unborn child, in addition to what pudge said, there is another fallacy. Roe V. Wade defines rights according to "viability" or the ability to live outside/without the mother.

As the parent of a six month old, I can attest that even at her advanced stage in "larval" development, she is still not viable.

Realistically, a newborn or even an infant resembles an unborn creature much more than it resembles an adult. It seems logical that, according to viability, abortion should, really, be legal for six to twelve months following birth; or at least until it is able to care for itself without the mother.

Even if most of the country does not want to "outlaw" all abortions, most of the country does have serious problems with Roe v. Wade when properly informed about it.

Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on November 12, 2008 10:40 AM
98. I am not a Republican. I am a Conservative.

I do not stand for a political party. I stand for the United States of America.

Thank you for your time.

Posted by: The Outlander on November 12, 2008 05:46 PM
99. Lynnwood Evangelical and others Pro-Lifers posting here:

I am wondering what you think of this posting by Richard Land. No matter what the law currently is, I would think you would be in agreement that we can and should reduce abortions. We can do this by addressing the root causes. I for one, do not believe that overturning Roe vs Wade will do any good. It just puts the argument back into the states, and even if some states outlawed it, others wouldn't so the "rich" would cross state lines to get the procedure and the "poor" would get illegal ones, just like it was before Roe vs Wade. Unless one addresses the root causes, you are not going to get anywhere. You can't "legislate" morality and right now total ban is not overarching moral dilemma to the majority of the country. While the majority claim to believe in God, the actual "evangelical" community, who are the ones raising the morality of the practice, is not sufficient to change the overall country. Until you can convince the majority of the country that life begins at conception and that there should be no exceptions (except for the common life-for-life as outlined by the Catholic Church), you will always have a stalemate. How many people drive the speed limit? You can't legislate what the majority feels is not their morality.

Posted by: tc on November 12, 2008 06:22 PM
100. Army Medic: Yes I have been in countries where drugs are legal. Many are legal here. We do not have nearly the problems with the drugs that are legal here as we do with the illegal ones. And we did not have the problems we do with the illegal ones before they were illegal.

But my argument was not that ending the drug war would result in paradise. It was that if you believe as Pudge does in that rights ends when you harm others, then people have the right to use drugs so long as they are not harming others.

Pudge appearantly does not feel the need to talk to me so I am willing to open the question to others that maybe have the same opinions as pudge.

Posted by: Lysander on November 12, 2008 06:54 PM
101. tc, I agree with Richard Land and as much as it might surprise you I don't believe Roe will be overturned, nor do I have any particular concern about it one way or another. I do not agree with your concerns regarding abortion returning to a states issue. The fact of the matter is that more states (WA being one) had abortion rights far more liberal than Roe before Roe. Those states will not change. Convenience, like the pharmacy conscience clause should not be an issue. Your "poor people/illegal abortions" arguement is a straw dog: We no longer live in isolation as we once did. Go take a look at airports, train and bus stations.

What absolutely does concern me is our federal government promoting abortion by funding it with our tax dollars. That is an outrageous inappropriate abuse of power. The fact that baby bear-y, the toddler president wants to extend our money to fund it globally is disgusting and flat out wrong.

You can't legislate what the majority feels is not their morality.

Yet you appear not to have a problem with legislating AGAINST the majority with our tax dollars.

Furthermore, you need to update your research and/or get out of your insulated liberal media bubble): the majority of American DO believe life begins at conception

Zogby International conducted the poll for WorldNetDaily and it questioned 1,099 likely voters from August 22 to 24.
The survey found 59 percent believe human life begins at conception, another 16.8 percent say it happens when an unborn child can survive outside her mother's womb with medical assistance, and just 17.2 percent say human life doesn't begin until birth.

Another poll conducted by CBS News makes it clear that a majority of Americans are pro-life when it comes to the issue of abortion. The October survey finds 54 percent of Americans take one of three pro-life positions opposing all or almost all abortions and another 16 percent want more restrictions on it.

Furthermore, OTHER polls confirm that a majority oppose unrestricted abortion on demand

According to Zogby International, which has tracked public opinion on many topics in many countries since 1984, a total of 56 percent of 1,209 respondents from across the nation agreed that either abortion should be illegal (18 percent) or that there should be limits on abortion (38 percent). These limits include making abortion legal only when the mother's life is in danger (15 percent) or legal when the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape and incest (23 percent). Since abortions actually performed under these circumstances are "extremely rare," the Zogby study suggests that a majority of Americans oppose "approximately 96 percent of all abortions."

What is most heartening about those polls is that YOUNG people are majorly pro-life. Maybe the probort position of their own mothers had an impact on how close they came to NOT coming.

The FACT is that abortion has been steadily DECLINING. 2005 saw the lowest number of these murders since 1975.

While you lament the fact we need to address the root cause (and fail to mention other answers to unwanted pregnancies) you neglect to mention the unintended consequence of OTHER liberal actions. One in particular that is heartbreaking (and it should be heartbreaking to you) is the homosexual issue and the net affect on the number one facilitator of adoptions, the Catholic Church. Rather than be forced to act against its own beliefs, the Church has gotten out of the adoption business. Next will come Catholic hospitals if/when/now that they are forced to confront legalized euthanasia

You want to talk root causes but we KNOW what causes unplanned pregnancy: irresponsible sex. Yet, liberals begin to foam at the mouth when with the suggestion of abstinance education. If I had a teen daughter (and I don't, I have sons & the last one of will no longer be a 'teen' by December, but the same principal applies) I would prefer to teach her to avoid it than prevent it. I have to laugh at liberals that get all bent out of shape about "preventing" lung cancer by abstaining from cigarettes and avoiding that horrible obsure evil, second hand smoke, but refuse to make the same connection for pregnancy.

Of course, we know why: there is great profit to be had in abortion, both from the action of it and from the governmental support. The 2006-2007 annual report showed Planned Parenthood the nation's largest abortion business has made over $1 billion in income for the first time in its history. Planned Parenthood reveals it has doubled "excess of revenue over expenses" funds (that would be PROFIT) from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million in 2006. Planned Parenthood receives more than $300 million in taxpayer funding each year. And with all that money comes the ability to control politicians.

TODAY, the US Bishops issued a stark warning to Obama, baby-beary, the toddler president over abortion

Cardinal George writes that "the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve," if the administration's policies increase abortions.

Futher, Bishop Bruskevitz to Fellow Bishops on Obama: No Compromise on "Vile Intrinsic Evil Such as Abortion"

And finally, in an act I call delicious poetic justice Catholic bishops cut all funding to ACORN

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 12, 2008 08:38 PM
102. tc:

I am wondering what you think of this posting by Richard Land.

Hey, he sat right behind me at the GOP convention, next to Fred Thompson's wife.

As to his article, I am against federal government initiatives to reduce abortions other than making it illegal. Those initiatives (except for the income tax credit) should all be state matters, though as long as programs like WIC and the federal income tax and SCHIP exist, I'd certainly want to make them more friendly to women with unborn and newborn children.

I think you will find that most pro-life people agree that it's good to reduce abortions and provide support for mothers, and many of us contribute time and money to charities for mothers.


You can't "legislate" morality

Obviously false. We outlawed slavery, we outlaw murder, we outlaw theft, and so on. I think what you mean is that you cannot legislate an activity that is purely an individual moral matter, but, of course, we reject that abortion is such a matter.


You can't legislate what the majority feels is not their morality.

That's why we have a Bill of Rights: to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

I get what you're saying, but you're saying it wrong.

I take Lincoln's position: just as he was against the great evil of slavery but refused to try to abolish it immediately (until the South seceded, anyway), preferring gradual abolition over time, so too do I prefer gradual abolition of the greater evil of abortion. It's the only way it can work in a democracy, because democracies are dumb. But it's the best system we've got; there's no better way.

Some would say that gradual abolition of abortion can't work, but as Ragnar showed, a majority IS against unfettered abortions. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against legal-abortions-at-any-time in a pregnancy, as Obama and Bill K. are for.

The way forward right now is threefold. First, as you say, work to reduce people WANTING abortions. Second is to do more convincing through science and philosophy that abortion is logically indefensible and bad for society. Third is to reduce abortions within the limits set by Roe v. Wade etc: no abortions in the third trimester, limited abortions after viability, and so on.

Posted by: pudge on November 12, 2008 10:11 PM
103. I do agree that we need to take a look at the root causes of abortion as opposed to solely focusing on making it illegal. There is a higher rate of abortions in countries that outlaw abortions than in countries that allow abortions. For instance, in Mexico, the abortion rate is 33 for every 1000 pregnancies and in America the number is 9 for every 1000. Granted there is less poverty and higher education in America but those are the facts.

Now, if we were to sit down and focus on say cutting the number of abortions in half, I think we could make some progress. It starts with education. Yes, focus on abstinence but you have to be realistic and offer sex education too. Next, the community needs to step up and offer services for women who have unexpected pregnancies; most need shelter, proper medical care and some encouragement to adopt. Also, pro-life folks need to step up and be willing to adopt! Furthermore, the church community needs to realize that 70% of people who abort their pregnancies call themselves Christians. So we need to not "cast stones" at those who are facing unexpected pregnancies; this leads to fear and fear leads to bad decisions. Rather, the church should offer assistance, care and not cast judgment on those who did make a decision they probably regret. If all you say is "you made a bad choice, you deal with it, you have to face this on your own" abortions will probably not go down.

I think if the church community, and society as a whole, decided to focus on reducing pregnancies as opposed to having the same old pro-life vs pro-choice argument there may actually be some progress towards a more pro-life culture.

Posted by: jk on November 13, 2008 04:04 PM
104. The Catholic Church 'community' has always been the absolute leader in adoption placements. Then homosexual activism forced them to choose between following the precepts of the Church or continuing their long history of adoption services.

They rightly chose to honor and remain their history and teachings.

The world as a whole and orphaned children are worse for it.

Actions have consequences.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 13, 2008 06:41 PM
105. *remain faithful

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 13, 2008 06:44 PM
106. quote?
forget it; forget the D and the R;

if REAL conservatives want change or rebirth, i suggest growing some balls--and right quick;

for now, change from within; little steps; reverse this impending and scary 4-year econ & social damaging curse with little gassy bugs in their guts; like many small bad burritos they happily, ignorantly ordered from the "change menu;"

make THEM squirt on the pot a bit; slowly surely our message will win; keep emailing your officials; talk to people (if safe); dams breach from many cracks, not head on force;

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 14, 2008 10:47 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?