Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on September 15, 2010, 10:18:40 AM
-
... is the Stupid Party?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/christine-odonnell-upsets-mike.html
"I'm sad to say the Delaware primary results tonight are straight out of Harry Reid's dream journal," said prominent Republican strategist Mike Murphy of the O'Donnell win.
Why is a MORE POPULAR candidate, with honest grass-roots support, a dark horse for the general election?
The GOP needs to put money and faith behind this candidate... not sabotage her in the news and backbite and nitpick from the sidelines. Whatever happened to the old GOP motto of "speak no ill of a Republican?"
I guess it only applies to the New England blue blood country club, and RINO, "Republican" set. ;/
-
O'Donnell isn't more popular than Castle. In fact, quite the opposite. Castle polls ahead 20% in the general election ballot, O'Donnell polls behind by 20%. Naturally, those who wanted to win that seat are disheartened by the new prospects.
I imagine there will be considerable discussion and debate on whether to allocate scarce resources towards such a long shot candidate in the general election campaign. I further imagine that certain folks will confuse this with sabotage, but it's really just common sense.
-
We're learning a lot about The Grand Old Party, thanks to the upstart Tea Party, aren't we?
-
I imagine there will be considerable discussion and debate on whether to allocate scarce resources towards such a long shot candidate in the general election campaign. I further imagine that certain folks will confuse this with sabotage, but it's really just common sense.
"Scarce resources" such as not speaking ill of her win in the nooz? I didn't know that was so costly to the GOP.
-
We're learning a lot about The Grand Old Party, thanks to the upstart Tea Party, aren't we?
Not on this race. Neither party will allocate money to races that polling shows can't be won. If O'Donnell shows some stronger numbers in the coming weeks, I would expect the RNC to give her money. Of course, it's always possible that they wouldn't just out of spite.
-
"Scarce resources" such as not speaking ill of her win in the nooz? I didn't know that was so costly to the GOP.
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.
-
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.
I have to disagree with you on this. Whether the Republicans retake the Senate this election is not important. So long as they retake the house, nothing pernicious the Senate passes will pass the house. Not only that, but the filibuster will be stronger after this election.
We cannot get a veto-proof majority in the Senate this election. Currently it is more important to send a message to the Republican party that while SOME moderation may be acceptable, someone who only votes for us 50% of the time is not an acceptable choice.
The message out of Delaware was to the Republican party. If, by a miracle, Ms. O'Donnell wins the general, that's just gravy.
The Republican party needs to learn not to dictate to its voters. The Republican party needs to learn top-down decisions will no longer be tolerated.
I hope they learned it this year because 2012 will be bloody if they didn't.
-
Did someone mention throwing tantrums in the primaries?
The NRSC has announced it would not lift a finger to help her in the general election and Rove was raving after the loss of Castle, his butt-buddy.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-national-republican-senatorial-committee-wont-fund-christine-odonnell/
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/14/rove-attack-nrsc-refusal-will
The NRSC won't even link to her campaign web site or give her a Bio blurb:
http://www.nrsc.org/senate_races
As for O'Donnell's chances, Angle was in a similar situation after her nomination vis a vis Harry Reid. I'd expect a bump in her numbers merely from name recognition after last night. If she had party backing (NRSC) & funding and the GOP Establishment manages not to throw hissy fits and disparage her, I'd expect her to be within the margin of error before the general election.
-
Castle could be considered a liberal democrat. RINO. If the Stupid Party wasn't so stupid, they'd get behind every primary R winner full bore. That's what the whole idea is about, to change the Stupid Party from being Stupid.
A great American philosopher once said..."Stupid is as Stupid does."
If the freaking R party would just begin to grasp that the purpose of the congress is to work in the best interests of America rather than as a job creator for rich arrogant people, maybe we'd go back to being a country of, for and by.
-
I have to disagree with you on this. Whether the Republicans retake the Senate this election is not important. So long as they retake the house, nothing pernicious the Senate passes will pass the house. Not only that, but the filibuster will be stronger after this election.
We cannot get a veto-proof majority in the Senate this election. Currently it is more important to send a message to the Republican party that while SOME moderation may be acceptable, someone who only votes for us 50% of the time is not an acceptable choice.
The message out of Delaware was to the Republican party. If, by a miracle, Ms. O'Donnell wins the general, that's just gravy.
The Republican party needs to learn not to dictate to its voters. The Republican party needs to learn top-down decisions will no longer be tolerated.
I hope they learned it this year because 2012 will be bloody if they didn't.
I think it's a mistake to discount control of the Senate. If we're to accomplish anything other than dragging our heels, we must be able to get bills to the floor of both houses, get them up for a vote.
We might not win the votes, but then again, we might. We we not not be able to override a veto, but then again, we might be able to prevent the veto from being used. It'll take a lot of political pressure, and much continued hard work from the ground up. But we have possibilities, we have a chance.
I think it's also a mistake to discount the groundswell political pressure we're able to apply these days. Even with Dem supermajorities, we managed to use political pressure to kill most of the health care takeover. We killed cap and trade. Killed card check. We're about to kill the Bush tax cut expiry/Obama tax increase. This kind of political pressure can also get bills passed, not just killed, but only if we can get those bills up for debate and vote.
"Sending a message" is not worth giving up all possibility of favorable policy change.
-
I think it's a mistake to discount control of the Senate. If we're to accomplish anything other than dragging our heels, we must be able to get bills to the floor of both houses, get them up for a vote.
We might not win the votes, but then again, we might. We we not not be able to override a veto, but then again, we might be able to prevent the veto from being used. It'll take a lot of political pressure, and much continued hard work from the ground up. But we have possibilities, we have a chance.
I think it's also a mistake to discount the groundswell political pressure we're able to apply these days. Even with Dem supermajorities, we managed to use political pressure to kill most of the health care takeover. We killed cap and trade. Killed card check. We're about to kill the Bush tax cut expiry/Obama tax increase. This kind of political pressure can also get bills passed, not just killed, but only if we can get those bills up for debate and vote.
"Sending a message" is not worth giving up all possibility of favorable policy change.
ONE Senate seat to send a message is important. I'm not talking about every seat like this, but the National Republican Party needed to be sent this message because of just how many times they've tried to pull this top-down crap this year and last.
They need to learn to stay out of primaries. If we lower our chances of picking up one Senate seat that's acceptable.
If we fall short by one vote in the Senate (already a long shot), so be it.
I don't think it as important as you do at this juncture.
(Incidentally, imagine if they had prevailed in Florida and we'd have Crist <shudder> as the nominee rather than Rubio.)
-
It looks like the adults have arrived at the NRSC:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/christine-odonnell-on-roves-un-factual-remarks-and-republican-cannibalism.html
The head of the NRSC, John Cornyn, has said the NRSC will support O'Donnell.
I do suspect the NRSC has received quite a response to its initial decision to give O'Donnell a kick in the *expletive deleted*ss.
-
Oh, looks like the Stupid Party™ wised up fast:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Cornyn_embraces_ODonnell.html
Guess they realized that alienating your base is a Bad Idea. Especially in an internet age where they can donate to their preferred candidate and bypass you. (Which, judging from O'Donnell's fundraising numbers, donors are doing exactly that.)
Edit: Dang it Roo, beat me by a minute.
-
The NRSC has announced it would not lift a finger to help her in the general election and Rove was raving after the loss of Castle, his butt-buddy.
I don't doubt that the national committees will withhold funding for her if they think she can't win. If you think she can win, you can always spend some of your money to help her.
I've no idea what's up with Rove. Everybody has a bad day now and then, and it's certainly understandable that a strategy and numbers kinda guy like Rove would be dismayed by the probable loss of a Senate seat.
Or, you know, it could be some sort of grand conspiracy by "The Establishment" to poke you in the eye.
The NRSC won't even link to her campaign web site or give her a Bio blurb:
http://www.nrsc.org/senate_races
Impatient much? The election returns haven't even been finalized yet.
:laugh:
Give 'em time to absorb the results and decide how to proceed. They'll be on board, you'll see.
As for O'Donnell's chances, Angle was in a similar situation after her nomination vis a vis Harry Reid. I'd expect a bump in her numbers merely from name recognition after last night. If she had party backing (NRSC) & funding and the GOP Establishment manages not to throw hissy fits and disparage her, I'd expect her to be within the margin of error before the general election.
Angle is playing in mostly conservative Nevada. Delaware is a different matter altogether.
You need to be prepared to accept the possibility that a far right conservative won't go over well in the heart of liberaldom, and that the reason for her failing there would have nothing at all to do with lackluster Republican funding.
If she improves significantly in the polls over the next week or two, shows that she has reasonable chance at willing, then she'll get support from the national committees. If she doesn't, then nobody is going to waste any effort or money on her campaign.
-
And it turns out that those reports of the NRSC turning away from O'Donnell were complete BS, the NRSC has made no decisions not to support her.
So far this afternoon (in the past half hour) I've heard quotes from Cornyn, Boehner, and Steele all expressing support for O'Donnell.
Sure had people worked up, though, didn't it? It's amazing what a little bit of false news can do to tweak the passions.
I'll have to wait until after work to look up the Rove clip, but I did catch some soundbites from it on Limbaugh's show just now. Limbaugh sounds more unhinged than Rove. I'll withhold judgment until I see the actual clip, though.
All in all, this O'Donnell reaction stuff seems to be a lot more heat than light.
-
The Republican party needs to learn not to dictate to its voters. The Republican party needs to learn top-down decisions will no longer be tolerated.
They're slow learners.
Last year in NY's 23rd Congressional District, party leaders picked a RINO named Scozzafava to run as the GOP nominee in a special election. A conservative Republican, Doug Hoffman, was passed over, and decided to run as a 3rd party candidate. He was outpolling GOP selectee Scozzafava by a large margin, so she pulled out of the race just days before the election.
She then endorsed the Democrat, helping him defeat the conservative by just over 2%. :facepalm:
Think about it - GOP "leaders" could have selected the conservative Hoffman who almost certainly would have won the special election, but instead they selected a RINO, who later went on to endorse the Democrat. Calling this "Poor judgement" would be a masterpiece of understatement - this was bad even for The Stupid Party.
Maybe the GOP leadership needs to be smacked upside the head with a 2x4, just to get their attention . . .
-
Add McConnell, Gingrich, Romney, DeMint and Giuliani to the list of Republicans who've gone on record in support of O'donnell.
Just more of the ongoing effort by "the Republican establishment" to sabotage O'Donnell, I'm sure.
;)
-
there exists an impression amongst the public at large that our newest addition to the ploitical landscape is a tuch reactionary and tends to go off before checking facts. that is not listed as an asset on their political ledger. well it might be amongst themselves but then that means that they lose sight of their goal which is to convert new folks as opposed to giving happy dance moments to the already converted.
-
Add McConnell, Gingrich, Romney, DeMint and Giuliani to the list of Republicans who've gone on record in support of O'donnell.
Just more of the ongoing effort by "the Republican establishment" to sabotage O'Donnell, I'm sure.
;)
DeMint was already on board.
Gingrich went out on a limb and said she would win. (Not could, would.) I respect that.
McConnell is doing damage control.
Romney is late to the party, as usual.
Guliani I hadn't heard. Welcome aboard, Rudy.
Maybe the message is finally getting through. We'll see.
-
Winning with RINO candidates is apparantly more important to the stupid party than putting up principled conservative candidates and risking the loss.
-
i think you are treating it as a moral ethical decision whereas politics is a business and the decisions get made accordingly
-
i think you are treating it as a moral ethical decision whereas politics is a business and the decisions get made accordingly
The win has no meaning if it translates into a policy loss on the Hill, if the Dems get a "yes" vote with an (R) next to their name.
At that point, it IS a business of maintaining the appearance of being a winning political party... for the purposes of campaign donations to the top-heavy bull-$#!+ of the GOP institution that leech off of that money. The campaign business depends on campaign wins, but care not one whit about the policy wins/losses that result from that campaign.
-
Winning with RINO candidates is apparantly more important to the stupid party than putting up principled conservative candidates and risking the loss.
It's a risk/reward/benefit decision, not a moral issue. How likely is the gamble to pay off, how much do you stand to gain if you win, and how much do you stand to lose if you fail?
It all comes down to whether you think O'Donnell can win in November. If you think she can, then she's the obvious best choice for nominee. If you think she can't, and Castle can, then he's the obvious choice nominee.
Politics is an incremental game. You take what you can get when you can get it, and then try for more next time. A centrist RINO is better than a liberal Dem, and a conservative Republican is better than either. Take what you can get.
-
i think you are treating it as a moral ethical decision whereas politics is a business and the decisions get made accordingly
There's no point to a politics divorced from morality.
-
There's no point to a politics divorced from morality.
Can't be repeated enough.
And I think the GOP is learning it today as well.
-
. . . Just more of the ongoing effort by "the Republican establishment" to sabotage O'Donnell, I'm sure.
Is Carl Rove part of "the Republican establishment?" Here he is on Hannity last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEfH-maWAKI
. . . A centrist RINO is better than a liberal Dem . . .
Mike Castle hardly qualifies as "centrist" with (among other things) his vote for cap-and-tax and an "F" rating from the NRA . . . in fact, I'd rather have an "F" rated democrat than an "F" rated Republican - the latter would vote with the dems, and give them the cover of "bipartisanship" on a bad bill.
-
There's no point to a politics divorced from morality.
I have to agree.
And it turns out that those reports of the NRSC turning away from O'Donnell were complete BS, the NRSC has made no decisions not to support her.
This looks like something more solid than BS:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100913/US.Primary.Rdp/
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/looks-like-there-is-dissension-in-the-republican-party-tonight/
-
This looks like something more solid than BS:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100913/US.Primary.Rdp/
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/looks-like-there-is-dissension-in-the-republican-party-tonight/
Not really. Unless we get some specifics, it's just hearsay or rumor that later prove to be false.
-
There's no point to a politics divorced from morality.
There's no point to politics divorced from reason.
-
or reality and the reality is that politics ia a business thats something we need to look at changing but its gonna be an uphill fight we'll fix the war on drugs first
-
The point of the exercise isn't merely to indulge ourselves by throwing tantrums in the primaries.
Did HTG just say that Republican voters in Delaware threw a tantrum, by selecting the candidate that they wanted? :O ???
Who is this east-coast elitist, and what has he done with Headless Thompson Gunner?
-
his avatar is starting to "frank" him. [tinfoil]
-
Did HTG just say that Republican voters in Delaware threw a tantrum, by selecting the candidate that they wanted? :O ???
Who is this east-coast elitist, and what has he done with Headless Thompson Gunner?
Maybe he's just channeling the spirit of the late Peter Jennings . . .
-
Did HTG just say that Republican voters in Delaware threw a tantrum, by selecting the candidate that they wanted? :O ???
Ah, read it again.
;)
-
I want the statist anti freedom R's to be the minority under the big tent. Not the ones setting the agenda and cutting backroom deals because they run the show.
I'd rather let the Dems fubar the nation a little longer than have the RINOs pollute the brand any further.
-
I'd rather let the Dems fubar the nation a little longer than have the RINOs pollute the brand any further.
See, I think that's just weird. I'm in this game to save and preserve the country, not to further any particular politician or party. Even if we were "polluting the Republican brand" (we're not), if that's what it took to save the country, then I'd do it happily and consider it a small price to pay.
I guess it's just a completely different mindset.
-
. . . I guess it's just a completely different mindset.
I think that most of the rest of us see more downside than upside in an office being held by a "Republican" whose actions have earned him an "F" rating from the NRA.
-
And what is Coons NRA rating?
-
And what is Coons NRA rating?
Ummm... I don't think there's anything lower than F.
-
Ummm... I don't think there's anything lower than F.
Well, in addition to being just as bad as Boxer, Schumer, and Castle, on the RKBA; maybe Coons runs around and actually mugs/shoots/rapes/kills people?
You never know. Especially since we have the multiple Kennedy / mondo criminality precedent.
-
Ummm... I don't think there's anything lower than F.
A quick search didn't turn up anything, so I'll assume that Coons is an 'F', too, just like most Dems.
If Coons is as bad as Castle on RKBA, that's a wash and you look to other issues to determine which one might be better. Like, say, nationalized health care. Coons would vote for it, Castle voted against it.
Politics is an incremental game. You take what you can get, even if it isn't much, and then work for more next time.
-
A quick search didn't turn up anything, so I'll assume that Coons is an 'F', too, just like most Dems.
If Coons is as bad as Castle on RKBA, that's a wash and you look to other issues to determine which one might be better. Like, say, nationalized health care. Coons would vote for it, Castle voted against it.
Politics is an incremental game. You take what you can get, even if it isn't much, and then work for more next time.
Politics is usually an incremental game. This is the time to swing for the fences. Democrats pushed far too hard these past two years and the blowback will be huge.
The pendulum is swinging back to the right, hard. It's not a time for half-measures.
I just hope the pendulum keeps swinging for 4 more years.
-
Politics is usually an incremental game. This is the time to swing for the fences. Democrats pushed far too hard these past two years and the blowback will be huge.
The pendulum is swinging back to the right, hard. It's not a time for half-measures.
I just hope the pendulum keeps swinging for 4 more years.
Fair enough. I can understand and respect that opinion.
-
Fair enough. I can understand and respect that opinion.
As I can your position. I'm usually of the same opinion that this is generally a necessarily slow and difficult process. I don't expect even if we win the next 3 election cycles that we will be able to fix everything.
I do expect that we will roll back the sudden lurch to the left and start the process of dismantling the leviathan, though. What needs to happen is to make the left fight to protect their position rather than simply trying to stop them.
The right needs to go on offense from this election forward. The process must start now or we are lost.
-
I understand the point of incrementalisim, and politically "playing it safe" to advance the ball, rather than hail-Mary passes that risk you losing altogether. I've had vicious debates over it in trying to get CCW passed here in WI against absolutists who wanted to demand WI going straight to "Vermont Carry". Claiming that our attempts to push shall-issue CCW were back-door gun registration schemes etc. ;/ When of course the reality was, shall-issue CCW has been a hard enough fight as-is in WI, and Vermont permit-less carry or "constitutional carry" as some call it wasn't even up for a vote. There wasn't even a bill...
(Monkeyleg had it even worse, getting editorial cartoons of himself drawn by "hard core" gun rights advocates over this issue. We both believe they have other motivations, but that's besides the point here...)
Getting sure-bet moderate Republicans elected from the "purple states" or even blue ones to gain control of a House or senate has it's upsides, they'll get the speaker or president of the Senate elected, the GOP will control all the committees, etc. write the rules for the house.
However, OTOH, if after we get all that "control", and the RINO sells out on key votes for tax relief, gun control, illegal immigration... whatever it may be, what was the point?
That's the problem with using moderate/RINO's to gain control of the legislative branch. You get the control, but it's worthless because you get betrayed on the key votes.
-
However, OTOH, if after we get all that "control", and the RINO sells out on key votes for tax relief, gun control, illegal immigration... whatever it may be, what was the point?
That's the problem with using moderate/RINO's to gain control of the legislative branch. You get the control, but it's worthless because you get betrayed on the key votes.
The point is that you get some of the key votes to go your way. Some is better than none. A RINO who votes your way half the time is better than a Dem who votes your way none of the time.
A conservative supermajority is the optimal outcome. If that's not on offer, take what you can get.
-
If we vote for an NRA "F" rated RINO, it won't be long before other RINOs start thinking that "Hey, if the democrat is also an "F" but worse on another issue or two, those stupid goobers who vote GOP will vote for me anyway. So why NOT support a gun ban?"
A RINO who votes your way half the time is better than a Dem who votes your way none of the time
Following this logic I've often voted for someone I'm not really fond of - though it means I hold my nose, suppress that old gag reflex, and come out of the voting booth feeling like I need to go shower.
But at some point, when a politician crosses a line, he needs to be punished at the ballot box. For me, garner an NRA "F" rating as a Republican (you half expect it from democrats) and you've crossed that line, and will not get my vote.
(And that "F" is likely going to be a good indicator that you're pretty bad on other issues, too.)
-
If we vote for an NRA "F" rated RINO, it won't be long before other RINOs start thinking that "Hey, if the democrat is also an "F" but worse on another issue or two, those stupid goobers who vote GOP will vote for me anyway. So why NOT support a gun ban?"
Following this logic I've often voted for someone I'm not really fond of - though it means I hold my nose, suppress that old gag reflex, and come out of the voting booth feeling like I need to go shower.
That means you should have voted in the primary to try to get a better candidate on the ballot.
-
I want the statist anti freedom R's to be the minority under the big tent. Not the ones setting the agenda and cutting backroom deals because they run the show.
The obvious rebuttal would be that tea party candidates are not really pro-freedom.
Just about all tea party candidates are in favor of the war on drugs, or consider it an unimportant issue. Even Rand Paul: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/rand-paul-now-opposed-to-medical-marijuana
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.
The tea party platform is great on economic freedom, but that's just one part of "freedom". Even the limited topic of economic freedom comprises several distinct elements: conservative government fiscal policy; corporate person-hood and freedom from onerous government economic intervention, and freedom of natural persons from onerous government economic intervention. Not all liberals believe that the second part is wise for all kinds of corporations in all industries. Laissez-faire policies that work well for light industries may not work so well for heavy industries with a large potential for environmental and personal harm.
-
Maybe the Tea Party candidates are not all that. I disagree with your description of them as anti-freedom, uniformly conservative movement. But that is not the point.
Individual liberty is not compatible with the welfare state.
The views of libertarians are not compatible with those of the social-democratic left. True, the left is tolerant of certain kinds of minorities, and expresses a support for certain neatly circumscribed freedoms, but it will never accept libertarianism as part of its general coalition, nor is libertarianism compatible with it philosophically.
The conservative movement will not, at present, accept a libertarian at its helm. If the Republicans were offered - the opportunity to achieve what HTG refers to as 'laissez-faire utopia' (there's nothing utopian with it) within an observable timespan, they would recoil in abject horror.
But it will accept libertarians as part of its coailition, and it will work to destroy the welfare state. The welfare state is a far more conservative institution (in the dictionary sense) than anything Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin advocate. Any true debate between conservatives and libertarians will occur after the crippling and destruction of the welfare state - not unlike how the Cold War only truly begun after the defeat of Nazi Germany.
-
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
-
Yes indeed. Ultrasound FTW
Heh.
-
Ah, read it again.
;)
OK, I read it again. Who was throwing a tantrum, then? You mean, Rove, or what?
-
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
-
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">
-
Can we return to discussion of the tea parties, please? I do believe we've already had this discussion.
-
i'm with jamis and roo_ster
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act))
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.