The next Obama

[Regolith]

Ha ha, the bastions of liberty at APS are arguing in favor of government funded abortions and the Feds bestowing special privileges on the pet special interest group of the day.

You can have your Republican party and its insignificance. You guys are just another bump in the road for Obama.

Google "government funded abortion", looking more and more like a fait accompli. You guys can have your dystopia, I'm not voting for it though.

May our chains rest lightly upon us.

http://aclj.org/obamacare/how-obamacare-uses-taxpayer-money-pay-abortions

I like how you put words in my mouth I never said. I don't think I've ever seen that tactic before. 

I'd prefer to get government out of the marriage business entirely, but neither the Rs or the Ds are pushing for that, are they? As such, we have to deal with the system as it is, and if you're locking out entire groups of people based on specious grounds, that's a big *expletive deleted*ing problem.

Secondly, I don't see where ANYONE has argued for subsidized abortions. That can still be fought on fiscal grounds (though it'd be better to fight against Obamacare in its entirety rather than that one single issue). What we have said is that the abortion issue seems to cause R politicians to lose their gorram minds and make themselves - and by extension, the rest of the party - look like fools, and they should simply avoid talking about it. Say something like "we'd prefer to let individual states decide" and then change the *expletive deleted*ing subject, preferably back to the economy.

Republicans win when they focus on economics. Except in deep red states, they lose when they go off on social subjects, specifically abortion, gay marriage, and immigration.

[Perd Hapley]

Abortion though. That's been an issue brought up since WAY before Obama was in office. And it is usually an issue pushed by social conservatives.

But here's the thing: there is NO movement about it on the horizon at all. None. What that issue DOES give, is the chance for conservative to swallow their feet for the media

Social conservatives haven't been pushing the issue this election cycle, and the only movement I see is that Obamacare is about to start financing abortions. The only attention the issue gets is what is created by the left. Akin is a perfect example. A left-wing journalist brought it up. Left-wing media and left-wing campaigns pushed Akin's clumsy answer as far as they could. Romney and the GOP leadership distanced themselves about as far as they could, even disavowing him and cutting off funding for one of their own senate candidates, but the left hung it around the GOP's neck, nationally, regardless.

It's only a slightly less egregious example than the narrative the left created out of whole cloth, claiming that Republicans were getting ready to ban birth control. There's no evidence of that. There's no reason to believe that was on the agenda, but the left decided it should be. So George Stephanopoulos asked Romney about it, out of the clear blue sky, paving the way for the completely arbitrary decision to require Catholic institutions to cover it in their health care plans. Which looks suspiciously as if the left "pushed" the issue just to fabricate a "war on women."

Interesting times.

[Perd Hapley]

Republicans win when they focus on economics. Except in deep red states, they lose when they go off on social subjects, specifically abortion, gay marriage, and immigration.

Citation needed. Especially after Romney's loss. 

[Ron]

I like how you put words in my mouth I never said. I don't think I've ever seen that tactic before.  

It is the logical extension of what you're suggesting.

Are you not suggesting that conservatives shelve talking about abortion while it is in the process of being established as an entitlement paid for by tax payers?

Are you not suggesting that instead of fighting for the principle of getting government out of marriage (where we agree) you instead once again want social conservatives to shelve any resistance to enshrining an entitlement to which they are morally opposed.

If that is supposed to be the voice of Republican reason I'll take a pass thank you very much.

That is the exact republican tactic for losing on every issue.

    

[longeyes]

Abortion is important not only because it is, for many, murder, but because it is the ultimate policy arm of shaping future demographics.  The categories of "unwanted" and "undesirable" need to be unpacked and discussed so we can understand and discuss what our cultural priorities really are.  Right now it all masquerades as "freedom," "rights," and "convenience."  We ought to be adult about who is going to inherit this world we are building day by day.

[Ron]

Abortion is important for managing the democratic vote farms, the urban and rural permanent underclass.

The number of permanent underclass have to be kept high enough to win elections but low enough to be controllable.

Using welfare benefits and abortion they have it pretty well fine tuned. As more suburban voters vote Democrat there is less need for the permanent underclass, so access to affordable ie free contraception and abortion is necessary.   

Just kidding, nothing like that could really be true in America.

[zxcvbob]

Abortion is important for managing the democratic vote farms, the urban and rural permanent underclass.

The number of permanent underclass have to be kept high enough to win elections but low enough to be controllable.

Using welfare benefits and abortion they have it pretty well fine tuned. As more suburban voters vote Democrat there is less need for the permanent underclass, so access to affordable ie free contraception and abortion is necessary.   

That is the most cynical thing I've ever read.  So it's probably true on some level. (and maybe entirely true) 

[Strings]

>It is the logical extension of what you're suggesting.<

And the outlawing of homosexuality is the logical extension of what you're suggesting.

I've never said that I think gay deserve "special treatment", only that they get the same protections that the rest of us do. For that to happen, you either have to remove any benefit for straights marrying, or you have to allow gays to get the same things the same way.

[longeyes]

Abortion is important for managing the democratic vote farms, the urban and rural permanent underclass.

The number of permanent underclass have to be kept high enough to win elections but low enough to be controllable.

Using welfare benefits and abortion they have it pretty well fine tuned. As more suburban voters vote Democrat there is less need for the permanent underclass, so access to affordable ie free contraception and abortion is necessary.   

Just kidding, nothing like that could really be true in America.

We know what motivated Margaret Sanger, don't we?  And we know what motivates the open borders crowd, both parties, right?

Cynicism is just another word for a cleansed mind.

[Balog]

I love how the loss of a candidate who distanced himself on social issues proves that we need to distance ourselves from social issues. 

[longeyes]

Our politics has become a way of dealing with elephants (not just the GOP) in not only the living room but the kitchen, den, dining room, and bedrooms.

These guys are so willfully blind.

[Regolith]

It is the logical extension of what you're suggesting.

Are you not suggesting that conservatives shelve talking about abortion while it is in the process of being established as an entitlement paid for by tax payers?

Did you not read the entirety of my post? Apparently not.

Are you not suggesting that instead of fighting for the principle of getting government out of marriage (where we agree) you instead once again want social conservatives to shelve any resistance to enshrining an entitlement to which they are morally opposed.

The Republican Party, as a whole, does NOT want government out of marriage. That may be something you and I can agree on, but that is not going to be part of the GOP plank anytime soon, nor will it be a Democratic Party plank. Both parties are too statist to give up that power.

In the meantime, the government needs to stop descriminating on idiotic grounds. Period.   

[Ron]

From now on I'm discriminating against Republicans and Democrats.

Two sides of the same coin in a gypsy game.

C'mon and play, heads I win tails you lose...

[BlueStarLizzard]

It doesn't matter who brought it up.

What matters is that it worked.

Both are canidaite killers. The MAJORITY is no longer worried about gay marriage. They don't care. Those of you who get your pants in a tizzle over a word are the minority.
Are you really saying that letting the USA go to fiscel hell in a handbasket is worth they way you define marriage? At the end of the day, does it matter? I'm not saying that you like it, or that you agree with it. I'm saying that if you belive in God and straight only marriages and you married that way, then by your reasoning your good to go. Is the fact that you think the rest of the world is wrong on that issue MORE IMPORTANT then getting behind a fiscally conservative canidate?

Same goes for aboration (which, BTW, you can't do crap about without some SCOTUS seats anyway)

Fistful, I think it was Franklin (who founded the first anti slavery group in America) who pointed out that establishing freedom for at least some was enough of a task for one group. We're humans, not gods. You can only do so much at once or at one time.

Regardless of who's right and wrong, it can get hashed out later, when we have the free time to do so.

Romney and the others got SLAMMED on the women's right issues, and they're responce was weak. I think it was weak, because it was partially true. They will cut womens health programs (which I think is nessasary fically, but needs to be presented as carefully as can be) and the would bring up the pro life platform if they had time for it. The same way the Dems would have already gotten some Anti 2nd Amendment crap out if they had the time over the last four years.
The dems learned the hard way after the AWB that anti RKBA is a canidate killer, why can't the R's figure out the same is true over gay marriage and abortion? Don't tell me the hard core Dems don't belive in those anti RKBA legislation as much as the R's belive in their two issues.

[Ron]

You can have your party of professional amoralists and lying sacks of *expletive deleted* who will say anything to get elected.

I'm done being their rube.



-edited for clarity-

[Perd Hapley]

Are you really saying that letting the USA go to fiscel hell in a handbasket is worth they way you define marriage? At the end of the day, does it matter? I'm not saying that you like it, or that you agree with it. I'm saying that if you belive in God and straight only marriages and you married that way, then by your reasoning your good to go. Is the fact that you think the rest of the world is wrong on that issue MORE IMPORTANT then getting behind a fiscally conservative canidate?

Has anyone said that? I think the point is that fiscally and socially conservative candidates can win, when we bother to nominate them. Examples abound.

Fistful, I think it was Franklin (who founded the first anti slavery group in America) who pointed out that establishing freedom for at least some was enough of a task for one group. We're humans, not gods. You can only do so much at once or at one time.

If it would help you to understand it from the perspective of the other half of America, consider whether you would be willing to back a fiscally conservative party who believed all blacks should be deported or killed. And imagine that half the country was already on board with that idea - you just need to put aside your conscience and deal with the economics thing. Would you be willing to do it?

The dems learned the hard way after the AWB that anti RKBA is a canidate killer, why can't the R's figure out the same is true over gay marriage and abortion? Don't tell me the hard core Dems don't belive in those anti RKBA legislation as much as the R's belive in their two issues.

Please point out where the Republicans have made a significant attack on abortion or gay marriage, and been punished for it in a similar way.


Another question is whether a fiscally conservative but socially liberal America could really work. Could we reduce entitlement spending to some manageable level, while continuing the moral decline that exacerbates poverty and crime? Could we have the guts and resolve to pull ourselves back on track, economically, and defend ourselves militarily, in a culture where reason, decency and family are not important? Would such a benighted nation be worth salvaging, or would it be doomed to sink into the same morass in which latter-day Europe now finds itself?

[BlueStarLizzard]

On a local level, they can win. In a conservitive area, they can win. Not on a national level. I think the numbers proved it, and so does the map. Romney got his butt kicked by the large LIBERAL population centers.

Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO BROUGHT THE SUBJECT UP. Seriously, how do you justify you're last statment. I didn't said the Republicans or Romney made an attack on those issues. In fact, they tried to avoid the subject. But the issues still got brought up and once they did, bing bang, Romney and fellows couldn't hold out. The subject is a canidate killer and if they don't bring it up the other guys sure the hell will. It's not just about who brings it up, it's the same diffrence between shooting yourself in the foot and getting shot in the back due to the big ass target you've got on. Either way, you still get shot.

You think Franklin thought it was easy to let go of the clause of the declaration that would ban slavery in his new country? And your example is off. We are not voting to activly begin doing something reprehensiable, we are allowing that we can't stop something that is already happening at this time.

(note: I am pro choice, will always be pro choice and belive as strongly as fistful is pro life. I just don't want to get into THAT arguement)

[Ron]

Are you really saying that letting the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket is worth they way you define marriage? At the end of the day, does it matter?

Same goes for abortion (which, BTW, you can't do crap about without some SCOTUS seats anyway)

Good questions, what are your answers?

Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than jeopardize the right to unfettered abortion?

Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than impede the expansion of government funded abortions via Obamacare?

Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than deny the expansion of government marriage entitlements to homosexual couples?

You don't have to answer, we already know, they are rhetorical questions.

Some folks social agendas are more equal than others.
 

[BlueStarLizzard]

Good questions, what are your answers?

Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than jeopardize the right to unfettered abortion?

Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than impede the expansion of government funded abortions via Obamacare?

Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than deny the expansion of government marriage entitlements to homosexual couples?

You don't have to answer, we already know, they are rhetorical questions.

Some folks social agendas are more equal than others.
 

You asked the wrong person. I voted for Romney dispite the fact that I think his social conservitism is totally wrong.

Yes, I would sacrifice my pro choice stance and my veiws on gay marriage to retain the rights to fight for them later.

The way I see it is simple. As long as I (and others) have the bill of rights and the means to exercise them, then everything else is possible.
If I don't have those base things, nothing matters anymore.

How can you even hope to make ANY social improvement or change if you don't have the means to impliment it? 

[Perd Hapley]

On a local level, they can win. In a conservitive area, they can win. Not on a national level. I think the numbers proved it, and so does the map. Romney got his butt kicked by the large LIBERAL population centers.

That is counter-factual. No Republican is likely to win the large LIBERAL population centers, social issues or no. No Republican presidential campaign plans to win that way. That's American presidential politics 101. Social conservatives like Reagan and Bush DID win, but they did so by motivating enough social and fiscal conservatives to counterbalance the big cities. (Of course, Reagan even won most of what would be called blue states today.) Also, social conservatives like John Ashcroft and Rick Santorum have been elected to the Senate. Ashcroft and Huckabee were governors. They clearly were able to succeed outside of "conservative areas."

Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO BROUGHT THE SUBJECT UP. Seriously, how do you justify you're last statment. I didn't said the Republicans or Romney made an attack on those issues. In fact, they tried to avoid the subject.

There you go. That is the difference between an attack and a half-hearted defense. When I said "attack," I was referring to a piece of legislation like the AWB. Or at least something substantive to advance their own platform. We saw that the Democrats made an attack on something and were punished for it in the polls. On social conservatism, we have NOT seen that with the Republicans. In 2004, the GOP profited from the fact that marriage was on the ballot in many states, and social conservatives turned out in droves to support conservative positions and GOP candidates. We haven't seen anything to refute that lesson. Nor have we seen the GOP punished for their abortion stance, Akin notwithstanding. Ersatz marriage won in a few states last week, but they were blue states. That may be evidence that the crazy ersatz marriage is becoming more acceptable, but that doesn't make it some kind of third rail that no one can touch. For a comparison, look at how backward some states are on guns. Yet the pro-gun movement has been doing pretty well.

But the issues still got brought up and once they did, bing bang, Romney and fellows couldn't hold out. The subject is a canidate killer

False. Not knowing how to defend your own position is the candidate-killer. The rape-abortion issue has been controversial for decades, and social conservatives like Todd Akin (in fact, Todd Akin himself) have been elected over and over again, holding the same view that Akin does. The fact that two people made a similar mistake in the same election cycle would be a poor foundation for dropping an anti-abortion stance that has been good for the party in many other elections, and is likely to help in the future.

A party that was unified behind its own candidates and policy positions would have had a standard response ready for such things. Something like, "No innocent person should be executed for something a criminal did to someone else." Something like that. Judging the popularity of a policy on the worst possible presentation of it is patently misleading. And by that I mean that you are misleading yourself.

[Strings]

>A party that was unified behind its own candidates and policy positions would have had a standard response ready for such things<

Therein is the problem with these two issues. Folks that would be willing to look at some form of compromise position for the party on any other issue, want to fight for an absolute stance on these two.

Abortion: no longer acceptable as a form of birth control. Allowed in cases of extreme danger to the mother, rape*, or incest*

Gay marriage: change the law to a civil union, good between any two or more consenting adults. Makes everyone equal under the law.

*I wanted to note on this: some women can deal with carrying such a child to term. For some, you are legislating that the victim be tortured for 9 months. Let the victim have the decision

[Ron]

>A party that was unified behind its own candidates and policy positions would have had a standard response ready for such things<

Therein is the problem with these two issues. Folks that would be willing to look at some form of compromise position for the party on any other issue, want to fight for an absolute stance on these two.

Abortion: no longer acceptable as a form of birth control. Allowed in cases of extreme danger to the mother, rape*, or incest*

Gay marriage: change the law to a civil union, good between any two or more consenting adults. Makes everyone equal under the law.

*I wanted to note on this: some women can deal with carrying such a child to term. For some, you are legislating that the victim be tortured for 9 months. Let the victim have the decision

If a fiscal conservative or liberty minded person was on the ballot holding those positions I could vote for them with a clear conscience.

[Strings]

That's the problem though: those two issues seem to be impossible to reach such a compromise. At least for the party itself

[Perd Hapley]

>A party that was unified behind its own candidates and policy positions would have had a standard response ready for such things<

Therein is the problem with these two issues. Folks that would be willing to look at some form of compromise position for the party on any other issue, want to fight for an absolute stance on these two.

That's not what I was talking about at all. Please read the rest of the above paragraph. I was pointing out that the anti-abortion position in cases of rape is far, far easier to defend than Akin made it out to be. Simply say that you don't condone the murder of innocent people. Done.

*I wanted to note on this: some women can deal with carrying such a child to term. For some, you are legislating that the victim be tortured for 9 months. Let the victim have the decision

No, the rapist tortured them. Murdering the child is not an acceptable response to this. To make such a claim is a thousand times worse than what Akin said. But your extremist viewpoint is what passes for a moderate position now. 

[Perd Hapley]

And your example is off. We are not voting to activly begin doing something reprehensiable, we are allowing that we can't stop something that is already happening at this time.

Then adjust it. You can either save your country economically, or try to do that and save the black folks at the same time.

But that example is off, too. Both scenarios assume, as you do, that we can right the ship economically, while giving the finger to the non-racists (or the social conservatives). A troubled theory, at best.