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 ThisAllow 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 AMI 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 AMRead 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 AMhttp://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 AMPalin 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 AMI 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 AMConservatives 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 AMOthers:
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 AMHow 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.
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 AMIf 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 AMMore 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 AMTo 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 AMAnd 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 AMA 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 AMReagan, 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 AMConservatism 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.
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 AMProbably 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 AMRepublicans 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.
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 AMIn 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 200834 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 AMNo 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.
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 AMThere 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 AMBear 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 AMIf 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.
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 AMTo 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 AMAt 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 AMSo please explain how this translates to:
I supported Obama and did not support McCain.
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 AMLook, 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 AM2. 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@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 AMI too believe that to be a true statement.
Posted by: Duffman on November 10, 2008 12:01 PMI 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"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" 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 PMStyle, 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.
* 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
Stats from CNN are "conservtive"... I'll keep that in mind.
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 PMYou 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 PMObama 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 PMPeople 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 PMBy 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 PMBut 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 PMBut 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 PMI guess I have ONE thing in common with our soon to be ex-president. :)
Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2008 03:25 PMYeah... 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 PMI 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 PMTalk 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.
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 PMAnd 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 PMAl 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 PMSTILL PROUD TO BE A CONSERVATIVE!
Posted by: scott on November 10, 2008 09:42 PMWhich 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 PM1. 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 PMBullshit. 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.
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 AMYou 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 AMAnd 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.
"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 AMBUSH 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 PMThe 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 PMBut 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:
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:
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 PMYou 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 PMAfter 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 PMYou 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.
Most americans are opposed to mercantalism and want free trade.
Posted by: Lysander on November 12, 2008 04:01 AMEvery 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.
With the above quote in mind, what is your view on legalizing drugs?
Posted by: Lysander on November 12, 2008 05:19 AMHave 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 AMAs 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 AMI 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 PMI 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 PMBut 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 PMWhat 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.
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 PMI 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.
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 PMThey 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 PMif 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