Just how stupid...

[Perd Hapley]

Just about all tea party candidates are life-begins-at-conception pro-lifers.  Obviously that's not a problem for many Republicans or many people here, but I consider it an important indicator not just of a candidate's tendency to support freedom, but also of scientific literacy and awareness.

Yes indeed.  Ultrasound FTW

[roo_ster]

Yes indeed.  Ultrasound FTW

Heh.

[Perd Hapley]

Ah, read it again.

 

OK, I read it again.  Who was throwing a tantrum, then?  You mean, Rove, or what?

[Jamisjockey]

How does life not begin at conception?  Cells begin dividing almost instantly. The intent of those cells is to become a sentient being who didn't have any choice over it's life being created.  I'd like to hear another scientific and moral explanation, because that's all I've got. 
<======== Atheist pro-lifer

[roo_ster]

How does life not begin at conception?  Cells begin dividing almost instantly. The intent of those cells is to become a sentient being who didn't have any choice over it's life being created.  I'd like to hear another scientific and moral explanation, because that's all I've got. 
<======== Atheist pro-lifer

Well, such a scientifically-based rational view of the matter and its implications gets in the way of one's pursuit of pleasure by hooking up one's actions with the consequences of those actions.

We can't have that.

<cue hand-waving argument regarding "personhood">

[MicroBalrog]

Can we return to discussion of the tea parties, please? I do believe we've already had this discussion.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i'm with jamis and roo_ster

[red headed stranger]

Can we return to discussion of the tea parties, please? I do believe we've already had this discussion.

It is tangentially related, as the abortion issue is yet another example of how the mainstream republican party makes promises, makes no meaningful efforts in regards to those promises, and then feels entitled to the votes of their constituency. Wash, rinse, repeat. 

Of course, that's how they like it.  I know lots of blue collar folks who would likely be Democrats if it weren't for the abortion issue. 

[AZRedhawk44]

Of course, that's how they like it.  I know lots of blue collar folks who would likely be Democrats if it weren't for the abortion issue. 

Catholic union workers piss me off.

That's where a big chunk of the RINO establishment comes from.

The rest of it is routinely excreted from McCain's *expletive deleted*ss and undergoes cellular reproduction much like Jamis described.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

OK, I read it again.  Who was throwing a tantrum, then?  You mean, Rove, or what?

I'm not following you.

Do you think someone was throwing a tantrum?  If so, who?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It is tangentially related, as the abortion issue is yet another example of how the mainstream republican party makes promises, makes no meaningful efforts in regards to those promises, and then feels entitled to the votes of their constituency. Wash, rinse, repeat.  

What more would you have Republicans do regarding abortion?  Given Roe vs. Wade, there's not much that can be done via politics and legislation, and most of what can already has been.

[red headed stranger]

What more would you have Republicans do regarding abortion?  Given Roe vs. Wade, there's not much that can be done via politics and legislation, and most of what can already has been.

If they are incapable of affecting influence or change on the issue, then I guess they should stop using it as a campaign issue.   

[Perd Hapley]

Are you referring to the Mike Murphy quote?

He isn't speaking ill of O'Donnell personally.  He's speaking ill of the prospects of a Republican win in Delaware in November, and of the wider goal to retake the Senate.  He's absolutely right, too.  The O'Donnell win is probably going to benefit Harry Reid more than it benefits anyone on the right.  Maybe Murphy should have bit his tongue, but the truth remains.

The point of the exercise isn't merely to indulge ourselves by throwing tantrums in the primaries.  The goal is to change the course of government, to implement our policies.  Retaking the Senate furthers this goal.  Electing a centrist Republican to the Senate over a liberal Democrat furthers this goal.  Electing a liberal Democrat over a conservative Republican hinders this goal.

Can you please explain?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I never said anyone was throwing a tantrum.  I was reminding that the purpose of the exercise is to begin a process of influencing government policy, not to engage in any sort of emotional feelgoodism.

When considering the results of the primary, or of anyone's reaction to it, the future impact on government policy should matter far more than how the election makes us feel.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If they are incapable of affecting influence or change on the issue, then I guess they should stop using it as a campaign issue.    

They are capable of affecting change, and they do.  It's just that the change they promise on and deliver on is not up to everyone's expectations.

Example:
Repubs had been campaigning on a promise to ban partial birth abortions since at least 1992 (I think - my memory may be a bit foggy).  They passed bans through congress 2 or 3 times under Clinton, only to have the bills vetoed.  In 2003, the Repubs made good on their promise by passing the ban through congress and having it signed into law by GWB.  This ban was one of the biggest pro-life changes to abortion law in a good long while, and it goes about as far as the supreme court has allowed the congress to go on this issue.  (Details here)

So, substantive change was promised, and after much hard work those promises were delivered on.  Yet some still feel the Repubs have made no meaningful effort to deliver on their abortion promises and aren't deserving of continued support over the issue.  I can only presume that these folks have unreasonable expectations, and that if the hard fought victories to date do not satisfy then nothing ever will.