Bombadillo
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 17 Nov 2009
Joined: 21 Mar 2000
Posts: 3851
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6, 2008 11:58 am |
     |
|
O Republicans, Where Art Thou?
This is a fascinating time in American politics. The Republicans have just suffered a historic defeat unlike any other time in history since the 60's. The smart conservatives are now sitting around and scratching their heads figuring out what to do next to repair the Republican brand, create some new ideas, and get those ideas out to people in time for the 2010 midterms for starters.
Not only this, but now is a time for the Republicans to take a serious look at their party and determine what really works and what doesn't, what direction they are headed, and who should really be calling the shots. I'd like this thread to be about answering these types of questions and projecting just where the Republicans might be headed in the future as the party begins its climb back. Not interested in a Republican bashing session or a hurrah Democrat session, I would rather talk about the philosophical possibilities of a future party not focused around George Bush, Karl Rove, and neoconservativism.
Some opening thoughts:
1) The only places McCain did better than Bush in this last election were in Appalachia and Arkansas. Are the Republicans in danger of becoming the Party of the Confederacy?
2) Fundamentalist evangelicals are the "base" that Rovians always talk about firing up and getting to turn out to win elections. Is this really the base of the Republicans now, and if so what does that mean in terms of their long term governing philosophies for the GOP?
3) "Conservatism". What does that mean anymore when looking to the future of the GOP?
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrStrangelove
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Servant to Galadriel
Last Visited: 13 Sep 2009
Joined: 06 Feb 2000
Posts: 4748
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6, 2008 12:58 pm |
|
|
Re: O Republicans, Where Art Thou?
Bombadillo said:
This is a fascinating time in American politics. The Republicans have just suffered a historic defeat unlike any other time in history since the 60's. The smart conservatives are now sitting around and scratching their heads figuring out what to do next to repair the Republican brand, create some new ideas, and get those ideas out to people in time for the 2010 midterms for starters.
Not only this, but now is a time for the Republicans to take a serious look at their party and determine what really works and what doesn't, what direction they are headed, and who should really be calling the shots. I'd like this thread to be about answering these types of questions and projecting just where the Republicans might be headed in the future as the party begins its climb back. Not interested in a Republican bashing session or a hurrah Democrat session, I would rather talk about the philosophical possibilities of a future party not focused around George Bush, Karl Rove, and neoconservativism.
Some opening thoughts:
1) The only places McCain did better than Bush in this last election were in Appalachia and Arkansas. Are the Republicans in danger of becoming the Party of the Confederacy?
2) Fundamentalist evangelicals are the "base" that Rovians always talk about firing up and getting to turn out to win elections. Is this really the base of the Republicans now, and if so what does that mean in terms of their long term governing philosophies for the GOP?
3) "Conservatism". What does that mean anymore when looking to the future of the GOP?
It may help the Republicans to study what happened to the Conservatives in the UK after their defeat in the 1997 General Election. In that political landscape, the "Thatcherite" base of the party were convinced they need to get back to their core principles in order to get back into government.
The problem was, while that played well with a sizeable minority it both "fired up" political opponants and was generally of little interest to the centre ground.
So a party that could be called the "natural government" of the country in the 20th century fell out of power for 10 years and only after radically overhauling their messages and claiming the centre ground have they become contenders again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
truehobbit
blithe and bonny
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 8380
Location: back in the land of make-believe
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6, 2008 1:06 pm |
|
|
Just wanted to point out that "thou" is the second person
singular
, and thus cannot go together with the plural "Republicans".
It might be nitpicky, but someone had to point it out sooner or later.
Otherwise, good questions.
|
|
 |
 
A pic a day - project 365, link to my journal
Sing me a story of heroes of the Shire,
Muddling through, brave and true,
Stubborn as bindweed and tough as old briar,
Never too showy or grand,
Year after year they persevere,
Now and for always.
 (LOTR, the musical)
...for man is a giddy thing, and this is my conclusion
(Shakespeare, Much Ado) |
|
|
|
|
Dave_LF
Mariner
Alliance: House of Feanor
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 01 May 2002
Posts: 5925
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6, 2008 1:07 pm |
|
|
I propose "Oh Republicans, where art th'all".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6, 2008 1:12 pm |
|
|
There were new ideas presented during the primary, but the Republican Party quickly rejected them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RoseMorninStar
Humble gardener of the Shire
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 7776
Location: North Shire, USA
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Iorlas
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Gondor
Last Visited: 22 Aug 2009
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4898
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6, 2008 1:20 pm |
|
|
This
is good:
Quote:
Dear Republicans,
You earned the beating you took yesterday. You earned every bit of it. It is your fault. Democrats may or may not have deserved to win, but you deserved to lose.
The rebuilding and renewal of the Right will start soon. This will be very important. The Right and the Republican Party are at an inflection point, and there are many directions things can go. The destiny of the Right and the Republican Party will be determined in large part by the decisions you make in the days, weeks and months ahead.
- Some of you will say "
we have learned our lesson
", and then try to pass off cosmetic changes as Reform. You are the problem.
- Some of you will say "
Republicans need to fight/hold Democrats accountable
", as if it is sufficient to be against Democrats. The pendulum may eventually swing back to you, but you won't know what to do with it.
- Some of you will say "
Republicans need to carry our message to the American people
", as if the problem is that Republicans haven't been saying "tax cuts and limited government" loudly enough. The problem is not the inability to communicate; the problem is that you have no idea how to actually deliver on those ideas.
- Others will say "
Republicans need to be more principled
", as if the problem is a mere lack of personal courage and principle by Republicans. Even the best people can't limit government if there is not an effective strategy for implementation - for getting "from here to there". You don't need better people. You need a better strategy.
The problem is not Republican politicians, although many Republicans politicians are a problem. The problem is not with the basic ideals of limited government and personal freedom, either. The problem is a movement that plays small-ball and cedes responsibility for infrastructure to business interests, leadership that rewards those who make friends rather than waves, an entrenched Party and Movement support system that mostly supports itself, an echo chamber that has rotted our intellect, a grassroots that is ill-equipped to shape the Republican Party, and a Republican Party that has replaced strategy with tactics, substance with marketing.
These problems can be fixed, but the fix is not cosmetic. The rot is deep. We do not need reformation of the Republican Party; we need transformation of the Republican Party. That is going to require fresh blood, new ideas, new infrastructure...and perhaps more than a little time in the wilderness.
You have earned the time you will spend wandering in the wildnerness. The land on the other side is not a promised land. It will have to be earned, too.
As is
this
. And
this
. All written by conservatives, BTW, just not the wingnuts that dominate the "conservative" movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
|
|
|
|
Bombadillo
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 17 Nov 2009
Joined: 21 Mar 2000
Posts: 3851
|
|
|
|
|
Lord_Morningstar
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 7116
Location: Queensland, Australia
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6, 2008 3:01 pm |
|
|
Tim Pawlenty seemed to have a good idea of what was going down when I saw him interviewed on election night on ABC.
That said, we need to be careful about taking these questions too far. It is normal for a party to lose the White House after they've held it for eight years. There was something like a 5% shift from Bush to Obama. The Republicans are still in a stronger position vote, EV and Congress-wise than they were in 1992.
So while the Republicans need to ask these questions, some of their pain now is inevitable and caused by the political cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bombadillo
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 17 Nov 2009
Joined: 21 Mar 2000
Posts: 3851
|
Last edited by Bombadillo on Thu Nov 6, 2008 5:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Lord_Morningstar
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 7116
Location: Queensland, Australia
|
|
|
|
|
Jnyusa
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Servant to Galadriel
Last Visited: 18 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Posts: 3922
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6, 2008 6:01 pm |
|
|
Lord M., I love to read about the elections abroad, but I always feel churlishly without comment because I know so little about their systems. Glad to see the Kiwi Election thread up, but I'll have to be a lurker. 
Regarding the Republicans, Mickey Edwards said something that really resonated with me, which was that the Republicans had always prided themselves on being the party of ideas. That is the main thing that has been lost in recent years ... most seem to credit Reagan as being the last Republican to run on principles,. Edwards thought the Gingrich years were the most significant, so he puts the beginning of the end a bit earlier than most pundits and closer to where I would put it - at the very beginning of the Reagan campaign, and the rejection of Papa Bush's complaint that Reagan principles were voodoo economics.
There are a number of reasons why I would date the death of Republicanism to the first Reagan administration:
• record deficits
• control of an acquiescent press at unprecedented levels
• shadow government in the basement of the White House, operating in defiance of Congress
We were lulled by the tremendous popularity of Ronald Reagan as a John Wayne kind of guy, frightened into knee-jerk support by the attempted assassination, and we did not ask ourselves whether the policies that evolved under Reagan would be good for Republicans or for government in the long run. Reagan fell asleep in his soup at State dinners, he was (we now suspect) suffering from Altzheimers disease at the time of his election, he had no patience for the details of governance, his view of government was that it was a sound stage needing nothing more than a good script and a good director, and he himself could not function without these. I had voted for George Bush in the '79 primary and was really dismayed to see him defeated by Ronald Reagan ... but, you know, George Bush got his own back in ways that will probably never be made public.
To see genuine Republican principles you have to go all the way back to Nixon, and my opinion is that we threw that baby out with the bathwater in 1973. Some of the Nixon ideas that I personally support, and would probably receive a lot of support among traditional conservatives today:
• keep as much of the decision making about revenue collection and expenditure as possible in the states and out of federal hands. It is the large corporations that have lobbied so hard for federalization because it makes their lobby efforts cheaper. We tend to blame the do-gooders (e.g. environmentalist) for the push to federalize regulation and redistribution, but the main impetus behind this trend comes from the publicly traded corporations. Their goal is very often the concentration of the industry, as we see happening now with the bailout, and saw just last year with the FCC antitrust ruling
• incomes policy to protect shareholders as well as workers. We now call this an income cap to make it sound undesirable, but publicly traded corporations need this discipline ... John Vogel (conservative) explains why in very clear language in his new book ... and I believe that the institutional investors on Wall Street would support such legislation at this time
• talk to your historical enemies. War is the last option, not the first, because it's so damned expensive in lives, dollars, and productivity. Edwards leaned heavily on traditional conservative repulsion for the whole Iraq war scandal. The only person in this election articulating anything remotely related to the traditional conservative values in foreign policy was Barack Obama. Forget Sarah Palin; ask how many votes were lost by "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." There's one word that no combat soldier, no policemen on the street, no spy in the field really wants to hear and that's the word "maverick." The Republicans in this election completely misinterpreted what Americans wanted when they said they wanted change, in my opinion. It was never a question of how maverick you could show yourself to be; it was a question of how competent you could show yourself to be
• the institutional investors who account for 75% of trading in actual stocks (as opposed to futures, option, margins and derivatives) want Wall Street and the banks re-regulated. That's the capital base of the country, folks. Time to get back to market principles and stop claiming that the only thing that violates a free market is a government. It ain't so.
• raise taxes and get rid of those deficits. You can in fact move toward a balanced budget while fighting a recession without making the recession worse. There are, believe it or not, economists who know how to do this. But we have to stop ridiculing them as out-of-touch elitists. As Edwards put it so succinctly, a person with a Harvard law degree really is smarter than an unlicensed plumber.
• education .... I'll have to finish this later, probably tomorrow. But there are all kinds of relatively simple paths back that would give the Reps a chance of winning back seats in 2010, if they have the guts to jettison the factions that are holding them back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windfola
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Rohan
Last Visited: 09 Nov 2009
Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 3253
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 7:41 am |
|
|
Jnyusa: I couldn't agree more with your analysis of the Reagan 1st term and Reagonomics in general.
It is galling to me the way so many Americans view the Reagan years through rose-colored glasses when I think he did so much to destroy the fabric of American society.
I won't even get into the way he pitted Americans against their government and against each other - that's a subject for another thread.
But what I have never understood is how the party of business could be so short-sighted. Name me a company that succeeds by destroying its market! (Henry Ford comes to mind as a great example of a businessman who understood this in spades). But instead, the Republican policies of the Reagan era tore down the strong and vibrant middle class that had been built up, aided by the government policies of the post Depression-post WWII era. And the purchasing power of that vastly expanded American middle class is what made our economy thrive (not to mention the world economy)!!
I think Obama understands this, and I think that a return to a bottom-up philosophy (with investment in the middle and working classes) versus the bankrupt, trickle down, voo doo economics of the past was one of the biggest differences between Obama and McCain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ToshoftheWuffingas
Ranger of the North
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 15 Nov 2009
Joined: 30 Apr 2004
Posts: 1474
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 8:47 am |
|
|
Based on these descriptions it seems to me that Obama is the Republican.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jnyusa
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Servant to Galadriel
Last Visited: 18 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Posts: 3922
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:49 am |
|
|
Windy, one of my former neighbors was a huge fan of Reagan, and I asked him why. He answered that Reagan had survived being shot, and anyone who could survive that deserved to be President. I thought to myself, that means every LA gangbanger deserves to be President!
The phenomenon of the Reagan years is something I will never understand either. He was one of the worst Presidents we'd ever had ... I think probably only Calvin Coolidge was worse, until George Bush II came along.
Tosh, one of the Republican commentators said almost exactly the same thing a couple days after the election. She said that anyone who had supported Nixon would be branded today as a raving socialist by the current Republican party, and those old-schoolers were the Republicans and former Republicans who voted for Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windfola
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Rohan
Last Visited: 09 Nov 2009
Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 3253
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 10:41 am |
|
|
Jnyusa: I heard Teri Gross' interview of Mickey Edwards and thought it was very interesting indeed. Might get his book . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bombadillo
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 17 Nov 2009
Joined: 21 Mar 2000
Posts: 3851
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 11:17 am |
|
|
Jnyusa
, thanks for the great post!
I agree with you that a lot of the "blue dog democrats" these days are starting to look more like the Republicans of old, a strange switch if you ask me. By spending more time on the culture wars and who is sleeping with who, the modern Republicans have really lost the ability to cripple Dems again and again with the fact that they are the only party that represents small government and fiscal responsibility. They have ceded the ground to the Dems on that argument whether they intended to or not, and even the shrill accusations of this last elections weren't enough to scare up the ghosts of Reagan to come out and vote.
Which brings me to another point. You are spot on in your policy analysis of Reagan, I won't disagree with you there, but I think what Repubs really liked about him as they look back through their rose colored glasses was the same thing that modern Dems like about Obama. He
inspired
them. Reagan was a great speaker and made both the Bush presidents since then look like rank amatuers when it comes to leadership. The ability to inspire a nation is one of those intangible qualities that a successful president needs to have and Reagan did have that.
My real point, however, is that Reagan was a long time ago. From here on out with the voting demographic changing so quickly this is rapidly losing its force with the base. Might as well bring up FDR constantly at a Dem rally. Sure he was a great Dem president, but I never heard him speak and neither did anyone else who is voting these days. There is no way the Republicans are going to court the youth vote with the ghosts of Reagan and their core constituency is getting old and dying off. If they continue to look back they are going to miss the bus heading forward.
The fact of the matter that the non-white voting demographic is growing and the white voting demographic is shrinking. It's not an overwhelming trend at this point but I DO think that it is something that will not be reversing itself anytime soon either. The great immigration from Europe is waaay over. Also, within that white demographic Obama cleaned up with college educated whites, another demographic that is growing in size.
The Republicans have to find a way to speak to the people within these trends or they cannot compete. Talking about the Reagan heydays or "getting back to principles" might not be enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 12:18 pm |
|
|
Reagan one of the worst? Oh goodness sake.
Worse than FDR? Nixon? Be serious.
I consider Reagan to be the last of the "somewhat decent" presidents. Not a good one and certainly not a great one, but it's been all down hill after Reagan. Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. have all been much worse than Reagan.
I know it is still upsetting twenty years later that he was popular, but it's time to get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RoseMorninStar
Humble gardener of the Shire
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 7776
Location: North Shire, USA
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 12:23 pm |
|
|
Bombadillo said:
Cenedril_Gildenaur said:
I know we're supposed to believe that Republicans still stand for tax cuts and limited government, but hasn't the last eight years been proof enough that they don't? What will it take for people to actually admit that the Republicans are not a limited government party? Twice as many Patriot Acts and Bailouts?
Totally in agreement here.
For a party that hero worships Reagan they seem to have forgotten that Reagan was not a bible thumping ideologist. He had some different ideas to get the base moving again, but it was a very different base back then focused on (as the big center of the country is now) on the economy. Picking up Goldwater's baton Reagan was not interested in overt religion, that was for the churches to decide.
Great comments, both of you.
Several years ago I read an article (and I wish I could remember where), discussing George W Bush and the Evangelical vote. The article said something about one of George H. Bush Sr. advisers commenting (after Bush Sr. lost) that anyone who could garner the Evangelical vote would win the Presidency. According to the article, that comment made a deep impression on the young George W.
I do not doubt that George Bush has a deep faith, but I (cynically) cannot help but wonder how much the Evangelicals have been 'used' for their vote. Bush, although often considered a 'born again' has never said that he is.. he has only implied it. I realize that ALL politicians 'use' various segments of the population to gain votes. But to use religion with such cynicism rubs me the wrong way. I truly believe that for the best governing of a 'free' country, separation of Church & State is a very wise thing.
I do not claim to understand it well, but from what I have read about the neoconservative movement, it was born out of liberalism with a strong proactive (interventionist/pre-emptive) an aggressive attitude toward world affairs/military, and the use of religion to control the population. Here is a quote from one of the founders of Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol:
Irving Kristol said:
For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it.
from Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
The Neoconservative movement has hi-jacked the 'old' Republican party. This is why the current Republican party has large government, pre-emptive policies and huge deficits. The Republicans should take back their party. Get back to their ideals and let the Neoconservative movement start their own (3rd) party.
Jnyusa said:
There are a number of reasons why I would date the death of Republicanism to the first Reagan administration:
• record deficits
• control of an acquiescent press at unprecedented levels
• shadow government in the basement of the White House, operating in defiance of Congress
GREAT post Jen!!
*Shadow government in the basement of the White House.. interesting. I know that this is not what this thread is about.. but it seems they had that kind of attitude when choosing a Vice Presidential candidate for McCain.. it didn't matter
who
it was.. just
someone, anyone
who would rally the base, because, really.. somebody else was really going to govern anyway.
Bombadillo.. oi..you must be young. 
A lot of people in my neck of the woods worship Reagan. For me he was 'ok', but I have never really been passionately excited about any politician.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GoodSam
Mariner
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 29 Jun 2009
Joined: 25 Oct 2000
Posts: 8132
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 12:44 pm |
|
|
I seem to remember the same kind of soul searching and hand wringing among Democrats back in the 90s during the Republican surge lead by Newt Gingrich. All it takes is some good filth you can get to rub off on the hero of the day, and you can get a big turn-around. It also helps to get a Charismatic personality to lead the charge.
I think that evangelicals (I count myself among that group) have been disenchanted with pinning their hopes on political solutions. We have had eight years with a Republican president and a Republican-led Congress for most of that time, and we still don't have a supreme court who are likely to rule in favor of any kind of limits on abortion. Additionally, greed at all levels of society has left the world economy in shambles.
That being said (or written) I think it still a bit premature to discount the effect of evangelicals on the political process. McCain was marginally less unappealing to evangelicals than Obamo or even Hillary, and I think most of us realized pretty quickly that the choice of Palin was an 11th hour attempt to gather in the religious fundies. Regardless of what many of the posters here or the SNL crew think, religious fundies are not stupid and tend to frown on being manipulated in this manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
vison
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elrond
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 8317
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 2:04 pm |
|
|
GoodSam said:
I seem to remember the same kind of soul searching and hand wringing among Democrats back in the 90s during the Republican surge lead by Newt Gingrich. All it takes is some good filth you can get to rub off on the hero of the day, and you can get a big turn-around. It also helps to get a Charismatic personality to lead the charge.
I think that evangelicals (I count myself among that group) have been disenchanted with pinning their hopes on political solutions. We have had eight years with a Republican president and a Republican-led Congress for most of that time, and we still don't have a supreme court who are likely to rule in favor of any kind of limits on abortion. Additionally, greed at all levels of society has left the world economy in shambles.
That being said (or written) I think it still a bit premature to discount the effect of evangelicals on the political process. McCain was marginally less unappealing to evangelicals than Obamo or even Hillary, and I think most of us realized pretty quickly that the choice of Palin was an 11th hour attempt to gather in the religious fundies. Regardless of what many of the posters here or the SNL crew think, religious fundies are not stupid and tend to frown on being manipulated in this manner.
How much better it would be abortion was left where it belongs, a private matter for the woman who is pregnant.
It is NO ONE ELSE'S business. If a political party keeps foundering on the issue, then that political party deserves to founder.
But, sadly, few politicians have the
cojones
to say that. Like, let's imagine for moment that an openly agnostic person wants to run for POTUS.
Nah. Even my imagination won't take me that far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Watcher
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 10 Sep 2009
Joined: 13 Feb 2000
Posts: 4332
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 3:03 pm |
|
|
GS -
I think you can tell by the responses of a large number of posters here who disagree with you on political issues that we all think abortion is bad, dehumanizing, and something we wish did not exist. What we are saying is exactly what vison expressed, however, it is NOT YOUR BUSINESS.
You may fervently believe that life begins at conception and that it is an act of God that caused it, but that in no way allows you to impose that belief onto others. You can protest, you can persuade, but it is NOT YOUR DECISION. 
I wish we lived in a world that would allow for better education among our young and ill equipped to be parents, but, even then the religious right fights even common sense things.
Women will have abortions, whether your religion sanctions them or not. Until , that is, we can educate the world that there is no need for abortion if people would just follow safe sex and their minds and hearts, not their loins. But, I find it also ironic that those most concerned with the "sanctity of the unborn" seem to have no issues at all with taking a life in the form of capitol punishment, or with arbitrary wars against those who are "not thinking like we think", where the victims are often hidden up and untold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RoseMorninStar
Humble gardener of the Shire
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 7776
Location: North Shire, USA
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 4:13 pm |
|
|
Good Sam.. good post.
I do not think Evangelicals are stupid (at least not measurably stoofider than the rest of the general population) 
I don't know if I made myself very clear.. but this is one of the reasons I think separation of church and state is so important. I do not like to see people divided by religion. I do not like to see people pitted against one another. I do not like the idea of politicians dangling a carrot before their nose, only to 'yank their chain'. Religion is something that is so personal to so many people, and for those whom religion is of the utmost importance, it leaves no room to consider other very important issues or they are left feeling as if they have betrayed themselves. There is such a diversity of religious beliefs in this country.. it would be impossible to satisfy them all.
The government should concern itself with liberty for the individual, infrastructure, etc..
|
|
|
|
|
|
portia
Mariner
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 18 Nov 2009
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 5394
Location: Lost in the forest
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 4:16 pm |
|
|
I would (shudder) have to classify myself as an "Old Republican." I believe in limited government and letting people and businesses alone to do what they do, until and unless they show that they can't do it. Then, sometimes, I will be willing for government to step in and help.
So, I am continually mystified by people who call themselves Conservatives, yet advocate for the government to control individual matters like family planning and marriage. If there is a more "Big Government/Big Brother" point of view than that, I can't imagine (and do not want to imagine) what it might be.
I believe in fiscal responsibility and am horrified by a Republican administration that runs up incredible deficits and refuses to recognize that it is even a problem. Instead, it calls efforts to deal with such deficits by raising taxes "Socialism." That is so wierd as to render me speachless --well, almost.
The most reasonable reaction to such people is to ask them who they are and where have they hidden the Republican Party.
Add cronyisn and incompetence and who should be surprised that most of the country rejected them.
I hoped that McCain could change that and he might have, once freed of the need to keep "the base" in line. But it is probably better that the Party take a good look at itself and decide who it really is, now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RoseMorninStar
Humble gardener of the Shire
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 7776
Location: North Shire, USA
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 5:09 pm |
|
|
Portia.. great post. I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jnyusa
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Servant to Galadriel
Last Visited: 18 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Posts: 3922
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 6:44 pm |
|
|
Bombadillo said:
Reagan was a great speaker and made both the Bush presidents since then look like rank amateurs when it comes to leadership. The ability to inspire a nation is one of those intangible qualities that a successful president needs to have and Reagan did have that.
That is certainly true.
I have mixed feelings about charismatic leadership ... on the one hand the ability to inspire and unite the country is a critical talent, but it should not happen at the expense of concealing genuine policy movement.
Thing is, people generally want simple answers: they like the guy or they don’t. We haven’t really accepted yet as a nation that a complex world demands more complex sensibility. We’re still fighting against that in our hearts.
Bombadillo said:
My real point, however, is that Reagan was a long time ago.
CG said:
I know it is still upsetting twenty years later that he was popular, but it's time to get over it.
Yes, that’s right, of course, but I would argue that accepting the Reagan derailment as a done deal and looking only to the most recent history for our strategic analysis, we overlook the most critical elements of our thirty-year economic decline and the most important elements of recovery. If one begins with economic events after the Reagan administration, one has started the analysis far too late to understand what really happened.
Unfortunately I have not the time right now to write at length about this but maybe I can draft something over the weekend.
Rose said:
I do not doubt that George Bush has a deep faith, but I (cynically) cannot help but wonder how much the Evangelicals have been 'used' for their vote.
GS said:
Regardless of what many of the posters here or the SNL crew think, religious fundies are not stupid and tend to frown on being manipulated in this manner.
These are both really good points, imo. I has sort of amazed me that the voters for whom religion is a deciding issue have accepted Bush's posturing as ingenuous. I would not give him the credit that you do, Rose.
Rose said:
Here is a quote from one of the founders of Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol ...
Irving Kristol was quite a competent economist in his day. I was a fan of sorts during the 1980s. (His son is a different matter.) But I can’t match his cynicism. And I think that, generationally speaking, he and I must necessarily be on opposite sides of all foreign policy issues because much of the emotional impetus of so-called neoconservatism comes from fury over the US ‘wimping out’ in Vietnam. Their explanation of
why
we lost in Vietnam is delusional, imo.
GS said:
I seem to remember the same kind of soul searching and hand wringing among Democrats back in the 90s during the Republican surge lead by Newt Gingrich.
Yes, the irony is rich! Quite a few commentators have been pointing this out, that the Reps and Dems have simply swapped chairs as the Party that can't figure out how to talk to mainstream America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Mariner
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 03 Jul 2001
Posts: 5325
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 6:54 pm |
|
|
One aspect of American civic culture that irritates me is the idea that if you voted the guy in office, now he or the government owes it to your particular viewpoint to reward you with such laws. Evangelicals wanting more abortion limitations or abolishment is one example mentioned here. The problem I see, and this should be considered by both parties but the Repubs now since they lost so much, is people wanting the government or country to be theirs when it is compromise that should be the driving force. I have my ideas about the country and an evangelical has his. Neither of us should be solely rewarded, but we should find a way to combine our ideas (giving and taking) to make the country better for all Americans, not one type of American.
The Republicans did too much of this during the terrible eight years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MithLuin
Mariner
Alliance: House of Finrod Felagund
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 16 Oct 1999
Posts: 7622
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7, 2008 6:57 pm |
|
|
Polls tend to identify evangelical Christians as those who attend church on a weekly basis. Just so you know.
Rose
, I agree that I tend towards cynicism when it comes to politicians. So I am sure that George W. Bush has said and done many things with an eye to winning votes, and that all politicians like to play emotional cards to jerk people's chains. I certainly viewed news reports of Bill Clinton attending services at predominantly African-American churches with a good deal of scepticism as well. Politicians do things to keep certain demographics happy; that's part of their job.
But if that were all it were,
Jny,
I think we would have seen the facade fall away during Bush Jr.'s second term. He wasn't running for reelection any more, that's for sure. Yet, when he went to China for the Olympics, and was interviewed on NBC (or whatever station had the Olympics), he made a point of talking about the lack of religious freedom in China and attending a church service there. So, that suggests to me that it is at least somewhat sincere or authentic. There is something there that is important to him, and it's not
all
for show. For what that's worth.
As for worst president evah, I would have to nominate U. S. Grant. He was woefully inadequate when it came to dealing with scandal. That was a case where a Washington outsider was not a good thing. As for Reagan, I always got the impression that he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he had good people working for him. The decision to appoint a general as Secretary of State certainly got Iran's attention with the hostage situation. I am too young to understand his policies with regard to communist Russia. I remember the Berlin Wall coming down...but I was in elementary school at the time. I did not grow up with the fear of nuclear holocaust that the generation ahead of me did, just as those who will come of age to vote between these elections will not remember a pre-9/11 America. Reagan's policies in C. America merely reinforced my impression that the US has never had decent foreign policy. We're idiots when it comes to that, and unfortunately quite consistent. I won't say we've never gotten it right (I can't argue against the Marshall Plan), but for the most part...sorry, but no.
Somehow, I think that the Republican party is going to be reorganized by...Republicans. Since no one posting on this thread is a registered Republican, I think we'll all just have to wait and see what the party does. I'm sure they'll identify ways to be more appealing to Hispanics, since that demographic is growing, but as for what direction they head in...we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bombadillo
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 17 Nov 2009
Joined: 21 Mar 2000
Posts: 3851
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8, 2008 8:05 am |
|
|
Quote:
Somehow, I think that the Republican party is going to be reorganized by...Republicans. Since no one posting on this thread is a registered Republican, I think we'll all just have to wait and see what the party does.
Yeah, I'd like to get some good commentary from the "R" people, but it might be a little too soon after the election for that. I was not in the mood to talk about the lameness of the Dems after the Kerry defeat, that is for sure. We just lucked out with a superior candidate in this election. There's nothing really that the Dems did on their own IMO.
Which makes me think: Lots of talk already about Bobby Jindal from Louisiana in 2012. Thoughts?
Quote:
I'm sure they'll identify ways to be more appealing to Hispanics, since that demographic is growing, but as for what direction they head in...we'll see.
I'm sure that there are some Republicans that realize that the Latino vote could easily go Republican since they are typically religious, hard working, socially conservative groups. The achilles heel is immigration. The Dems need to be aware of this as well. If the Republicans can pull it together, this group has "swing" written all over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
Goto:
|
|
| Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 Next |
|
|
| The time now is Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:05 pm ... All times are GMT - 8 Hours
|
|
| |
Give Bombadillo a Premiere Membership!
