Life After NY-23: Beware the Coming of the RINO
There are many messages that come out of New York’s 23rd congressional district race.
Yes, as a general rule it’s a good idea to work through the two-party system. The special circumstances of New York’s 23rd district, including the existence of a center-right Conservative Party that the Republican establishment ignored and the obvious liberalism of Dede Scozzafava, made this race an exception. But the final result illustrates the challenge of working outside that two-party system.
Doug Hoffman, who didn’t live in the district, was a poor candidate to play the role of knight in shining armor. The best conservative to win on Tuesday was Bob McDonnell, successfully running for governor in Virginia. McDonnell didn’t win just because he was a conservative. He was a good candidate and he understood local issues. The people of the 23rd district were being asked to support a candidate who didn’t live in the district and who was backed by national political players who didn’t live in the district.
The one lesson that doesn’t come out of this mess is the one that’s being pushed by many who advocate the nomination of more liberal Republican candidates. Tuesday night did not prove the need to embrace RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) as the party’s nominees. Rather, the opposite was suggested, as Scozzafava was the latest in a long stream of RINOs to turn on her benefactors.
I don’t use the term RINO as some do and apply it to everyone I disagree with in the GOP. In fact, I usually avoid the term. But there is no other word that applies to Dede Scozzafava, whose stances on the issues made her a favorite of the ACORN-backed Working Families Party. She’s a liberal Republican, with no allegiance to the party and its platform. That made it easy for her to back the Democrat.
Membership in a political party is a contract. You don’t back the Democrat publicly as Scozzafava did. This was after Republicans spent $900,000 to save her campaign from her own worst enemy: Dede Scozzafava.
Of course, Scozzafava is only the latest of RINOs to knife the GOP in the back:
- President George W. Bush, Senator Rick Santorum, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) tried to save Senator Arlen Specter from a well-deserved defeat at the hands of Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. Specter returned the favor by switching parties when it became apparent that his vote for Obama’s stimulus would cost him the Republican primary against Toomey in 2010.
- In 2008, after losing a hard-fought Republican primary, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest endorsed Democrat Frank Kratovil. He also endorsed the election of President Obama.
- Also in 2008, despite 30 years of support from Republican activists in Iowa, former Congressman Jim Leach endorsed Barack Obama for president.
- Former Congressman Joe Schwarz endorsed Democrat Mark Schauer over the man who defeated him in the GOP primary of 2006.
- The NRSC spent $1 million to save Lincoln Chafee from a primary challenge at the hands of a conservative mayor, but Chafee lost the general election. He became an independent and endorsed Obama.
How about the ultimate RINO, Colin Powell? Bush made him the first black Sec State. I get that they disagreed, but gods, he had to at least agree with McCain, right? No, he, too, endorsed Obama, knowing full well that Obama was completely unqualified to serve. He couldn’t NOT know. He betrayed the Pubs AND his Country… for skin color.
Nancy is California Dreaming-
That race in NY-23 involved about 100,000 votes,
the other 2 races in NJ and VA involved about 7,000,000 voters.
The Democrat looser didn’t get as many votes as the local animal controller.
Go ahead Nancy,
pass your 2000 page health insurance medicaid bill for America.
I hope it rams through.
150 million angry white voters are just trembling and waiting to go through you and congress like crap through a 2010 Thanksgiving goose.
People calling Gingrich a RINO is absurd. Gingrich is one of the most influential conservatives in the country. It would be like liberals turning on Chomsky and claiming he’s a hardcore conservative. All Gingrich did was quietly endorse the Republican candidate in that district because Hoffman was a complete nobody with virtually zero support who didn’t win the nomination by the local Republicans. And after Hoffman support surged suddenly and Dede dropped out Gingrich then endorsed Hoffman. He made a small mistake and corrected it the best he could. There really wasn’t much more he could have done. Gingrich was also very successful in creating a broad conservative majority across the country which completely killed the liberal agenda, lest we forget what he’s done for conservatism and the country. He’s obviously trying to repeat that strategy in order to stop Obama, Pelosi, Reid and crew. Isn’t that something we should all be supporting? Call me crazy…
Very impressive post. I am looking forward to the continuation since it did not go into much depth.
http://acaiforcemaxreviews.wetpaint.com
Call me crazy…
Alright, you’re crazy.
The Newt of 1994 does not exist anymore. In his place is a jaded would-be king-maker who has assumed the position formerly held by Bob Dole and then John McCain, that of the stalwart party loyalist whose “time has come”.
Whatever insight Newt had into the body politic of the conservative movement has long since been erased by the need to preserve his position within the Washington power structure.
#3 Blackwater: Newt is not a RINO, but what’s clear from looking at the combination of (1) his personal life, (2) his flirtations with leftists on a few issues, and (3) his support of Dede, is that Newt is not a particularly principled man. I appreciate all that Newt did in the 1990s, but he’s not done much positive for conservatism or the Republican party lately. In fact, one could argue his mishandling of the government shut down cost the party dearly, and that the personal crap that caused him to resign as speaker at a time when leadership was critical suggests (tragic) flaws in his character that relegate him permanently to that second or third rank of statesmen whose personal failings prevented their realizing their great potential.
ditto #5 Tolbert.. also Dede the lib was not placed on the ballot by the local voters.. had there been a primary she probably would not have been there at all , at least not with a (R) by her name…
sorry blackwater but Newt is a man whose time has passed him by.
Not denying the mans intelligence, he has just lost his way in the beltway.
I’ve never liked the the term RINO, since it sees to imply some kind of strength (as in Rhinoceros), and applying that term to politically correct, weak-kneed, politically traitorous likes of Scoxxy, Specter, etc., send the wrong signal. I prefer to call them Elmer Fudd Democrats, or WHINOs.
I can understand the criticisms of Newt Gingrich for his support of Scozzy, but before deciding that Newt is a WHINO, listen to his speech at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1XaQ7tz8uM. It looks like the GOP had a problem in New York’s 23rd. It could not (or didn’t try hard enough) to find a real conservative candidate in time for the election. The current dilemma for the GOP is that its leadership tends to forget or fails (at times) to understand that supporting a Republican (a self-selected label), is not the same as supporting a Conservative (which stands for the values in which a plurality of Americans believe). The the GOP recognized the difference is apparent was apparent in some cases (NJ, VA), but not in NY’s 23rd is an error that the GOP will have to learn how to correct.
Personally, I prefer to call Dede a DIRC rather than a RINO… she really was a Democrat In Republican Clothing.
Looking over her policies, I can’t find a single one that matches the Republican Platform.
Great article, which stands in stark contrast to yesterday’s frumian fantasy by Roger Simon.
The headline (which I suspect the author did write) is a little misleading. Yesterday’s lesson for the GOP is to nominate solid conservatives who live and can articulate the principles of conservativism.
As for Newt, days after the Van Jones controversy erupted he was on Fox News Sunday claiming he didn’t know what the controversy was all about. Newt’s best before date has long since passed.
Agree with the sentiments on Gingrich. He is Bill Clinton’s evil twin, a smart but undisciplined narcissist who lacks character and is befuddled by the DC Kultursmog as Emmett Tyrell describes it. At this point, let him bloviate on Fox, but look for real leaders with principles elsewhere.
“Membership in a political party is a contract. You don’t back the Democrat publicly as Scozzafava did.”
Well, I’m certainly glad we got THAT point cleared up. Clearly, bluedog Dems MUST support the party’s health care bill. They have a contract!
Quick chime about Newt: As astute and intellectually important as he has consistently proven to be, the facts as they lay indicate he does NOT have his game this year. Furthermore, as much as I admire and respect the man, I regrettably admit that Sunday was the day I first wondered if he was getting old. Hopefully he redeems himself with bountiful insight, and get straight about the climate-crack.
But I really want to throw out a proposition for the future.
– Unions for All — would anyone be open to it?
Its the most rational end-game my feeble mind can yet come up with though Im sure its not new. To me it is just a logical extension of the separation of church and state. That being said, in my attempt at objectivity I suspect there is a risk of alienation. In defense, I’m Californian; yes, horrible. Imagine being stuck in an elevator with ‘Fresh Air’ playing over and over. How did I become? It is complementary so think Ill make this an even longer post.
I did not care so much about politics till I realized it had failed to do the one thing it was created to. That is when I saw someone in a suit one morning have to decide between ending up extra thin or extra crispy. Preventing this kinda thing is more or less all I really expect from the fed, all else is secondary. It was obvious to me, as I thought it was to everyone , that this attack had to require many years and multiple institutional failures, and I further thought it obvious that even if GW could move mountain and earth (which he ended up in some way doing), its not reasonable to expect any president in 8 months to undo 8 years of institutional destruction. Imagine if he had… it would have been seen as a witch hunt.
So the Left is hopeless, as it would take a disconnect from reality to hold Bush, and not Clinton, accountable (that birth certificate, on the other hand, looked rather crisp for a 40+ year old document – all I will say). And watching closely over the next few years I came to view Democrats as largely reactionary, and severly questioned their ability to provide complete rational arguments for most of their positions. Specifically, I could not help but feel that they often oppose things just because they don’t want to be on the side of the Republicans, and that it may in part be their nature. It was also clear to me that the Republicans do this less often and never in matters of national security… but actually this gets to what I want to talk about. I am not a hack but I do know what is meant by the “Republican Brand” and I can tell you that there are many people who would probably be supportive of positions if only they were not ‘tarnished’ by GOP support. Rather than try to think of ways to change the spin, I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, there is not a small concillation that can be made in exchange, not necessarily for a larger tent, but for one less susceptible to disdain. I do not want to imply their lifestyle is right or wrong, nor that the GOP is the only future, but if they asked, this would be my two cents. Of course, I am not being asked. I’m posting this because it is a plea. As a registered non-afiliated distraught american who aches for a return to the age of reason, and, assuming the idea makes any sense, I would hope the GOP might consider something along these lines.
At the risk of over simplification, I think we just need to distinguish between tax/living status, and the document that is used to certify it. This has always been the touted “Marriage Certificate” and so, not surprisingly, everyong wants one. But it’s not like they are asking for acceptance into the catholic church, right? So we solve it here, at the interaction.
Playing devil’s advocate, it would appear ‘we’ want to have a religious institution of marriage and yet ‘we’ are trying to get the state to protect it…. sound right? Now clearly the church has dibs on the term itself, and as much as the left wants to demand open access to this club, it is futile, for acceptance can never be imposed, only given. While, their feeling of rejection might never subside, I don’t believe that gripe alone will have any legs.
We need to separate union from marriage. Leave ‘marriage’ to religion. The government should define it’s own concept of a ‘union’ and apply that in tax and civil legislation. Our government has piggy-backed upon the ancient “tradition” of the uniqueness of the union of a man and a woman, and its hand of equality is now being forced. we find there are others who hold a different bond sacred and are asking “how equal is the equality?” I for one think they deserve an answer, whatever it may be. To be honest, Im tired of hearing them ask (I know I should move). And I am under the impression that we all desire equality under law and taxes. Lets not forget that equality can mean the freedom for a state to choose, in which case no one could complain. And this says nothing about social equality, which is irrelevant and not a matter for government to concern its legislation with.
Furthermore, I don’t think this has to mean any substantive change in our lives. Quite the contrary, we, and the media, can call it whatever we so please, and most likely that means not much will change, you would still see “gay marriage” in the paper and hear it on TV. It might be as inconsequential as a unique lexicon for DMV and whatnot. In fact, this change is largely semantics, legal terminology, which, once we fix will no longer be a Legal issue and the prospect of it becoming a less political one. No one could say the Republican party is against gay marriage and be accurate. Does the GOP really want to exist in perpeptuity excluding, BY NAME, a permanent segment of voters? what kind of long term plan is that. as this stuff is un-ending fodder for the left and they run the media. You know, to the point of Republican brand management, how on this green earth did it NOT come to be identified with the end of slavery.
This needs to become a state and local issue, freeing the image of the GOP from geographically varying politics of it.
You will always have to decide where you live, how you raise your kids, and what you believe. But it seems to me if a society is to claim equinamity AND enjoy restricted institutions, then those instutions can only be defined BELOW the federal level. In other words, they can’t exist at all levels… that would be a total societal exclusion. I am assuming here we do not want to exclude gay and lesbians from living in our society… That is another rational solution; whether its moral or inline with the Declaration of Independence is more a subjective question, but it would not be in dialectal conflict as ours is.
I can’t help but perceive that while the left is trying to impose government intrusion in all aspects of our lives, the right, while aware and sounding the alarm, would also like our doors open, if only just a crack.
Also, I do not want to imply this should be easy. For example, the word “marriage” appears in DOMA, which would put that bill at odds with this thesis. Yet DOMA was needed, and in-line with public opinion, as the polls even today will show you. So its not yet clear to me exactly how to get there, or exactly where ‘it’ is, but I think one sign will be that something like DOMA would never be needed again, nor any federal legislation including the m-word.
The m-word has been rigged with explosives. The GOP might consider a change in it’s legal significance to render irrelevant the calls for a change in its definition.
Sad to say, yesterday, Newt admitted that he may have made a mistake. His mistake was the knee-jerk reaction to back up a Republican at all costs. For someone so seemingly intelligent to back up Dede with her record shows a level of ignorance about the subject only exceeded by the level of willful ignorance shown by those who voted for THE ONE, despite his record and lack thereof.
As for RINO as a term of strength, I would remind you that Rhinos are an endangered species, and maybe this could apply to our own RINOs.
The influence of the RINO is sharply declining. These people are empowered when the majority of the voters feel confident concerning their own economic circumstance. In other words, you might be tempted to indulge in a certain degree of silliness when you feel financially secure. However, people get serious when the bovine excrement hits the fan. RINOs become a luxury that one can no longer afford. Obama is scaring a lot of the so-called middle of the road citizenry who only a short time ago thought they had it made. These voters had no idea that 2008 was a watershed election year. A high number of them were in great shape financially sixteen months ago. Some are now declaring bankruptcy.
Excellent article Mr. Graham. I’m glad you noted that Hoffman didn’t even live in the district. You might have noted that Owens is more conservative than Scozzafava and a retired Airforce officer which probably carried a lot of weight in a district where Ft. Drum has a big payroll.
Correction
The headline (which I suspect the author did not write) is a little misleading. (Dan Riehl said he did not write the infamous Bury Beck headline.)
Since, by definition of action, moderates have no firm beliefs, they will gravitate towards the stronger idealogy. With conservatism on the rise,(due to the predictable failure of Marxist liberal policies) the GOP stands to see real gains in many upcoming elections by attracting the undecided IF they can manage to establish the brand as truly, fiscally conservative. They can do this by merely asking their candidates to fill out a survey stating their beliefs that is available for public viewing.
I have just one question and that is : can Scuzzy be sued for taking the money from the Republicans and then endorsing a democrat? No one wants to donate to their party and then find some unprincipled person handing votes to the opposition!
I wholeheartedly agree with the criticisms of Newt Gingrich. He is not a true conservative. I heard him on Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday talking about the NY-23 situation and basically I wasn’t impressed. Gringrich is trying hard to position himself as the Republican Presidential nominee for 2012, which is why he is working behind the scenes to get people elected who will then turn around and support him for President. But Gringrich has underestimated the fact that conservatives like me have had enough of moderates and RINOs running the party. And we are willing to pay the political costs!
NY-23 ended Gringrich’s presidential possibilities. I absolutely will not vote for him. As far as I am concerned, Newt Gringrich has become a D.C. moderate who is now doing more harm than good to the Republican Party.
And by the way, you moderates who think that we conservatives are going to back down on our principles in order to win should think twice about it. You shouldn’t play chicken with people who are riled up and angry! This movement is real and we will fight for conservatism, even if it is against the Republican Party.
A high maintenance bunch that need their egos stroked? That’s a laugh. They aren’t brow beating people and calling them communists because they don’t agree on something.
Marc,
In regards to Colin Powell, after Bush and Co. used him and left him out to dry after the debacle at the UN with the Iraq resolutions, why should he show any degree of loyalty to that gang? The man is more of a patriot than all those clowns put together.
Conservatives are not racist . . . how many times do I have to say this?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/eliot/skinheads-from-maine-26q
RINO’s have been getting purged from the Republican ranks since the last 2 election cycles of 2006 & 2008; 2010 will see another purge of RINO’s. RINO’s are too quick to compromise their beliefs for the sake of “bipartisanship.” RINO’s also crave to be liked for commonality instead of respected for differences; they quickly sell-out themselves & the Republicans for the Democrats’ agenda. For some time, the RINO’s has gained control of the Republican Party & this must end. Conservatives must retake control from the RINO’s & control the Republican agenda–not the RINO’s. RINO’s are not leaders–but followers. Conservatives, with bold colors, bold & strong core beliefs are the true leaders.
RINO’s do not mind being humiliated on national television; in fact, the seek it out like some kind of masochist. Watching a RINO on television is like watching a woman having an exam from her gynecologist. Or a doctor examing a man’s prostate. RINO’s need to get a clue; they are not leaders & never will be.
Newt Ginggrich is an opportunist–like John McCain; a political opportunist has wobbly beliefs at best with no center to hold him. Newt Gingrich made a terrible mistake backing the liberal lizard Democrat in Republican’s clothing called Dede Scozzafava; his squirming on this issue is telling. He did not apologize. He blamed the local Republicans. And this is an example of his so-called leadership? No. But it is an example of Newt’s hungry political opportunism in an attempt to remain relevant. Ironically, I believe his backing of Democrat Dede Scozzafava has undone Newt Gingrich’s dream of being a possible POTUS candidate for 2012; there are better candidates than the corrupt, political opportunist Newt Gingrich. He’s done.
Amen, Adam.
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.”
…. Ronald Reagan (1975)
“Every Republican should know that there are two divisive forces in the Republican Party that always threaten to break it apart and ruin its chances. The first is the insincere consultants in the “news” media that try to rule it from the outside. The second is the consultants in the party that listen to them.”
……. Brent Bozell
The benefitst of the NY23 outcome;
1) Owens will NEVER betray the grass roots Republican base!
2) Owens will NEVER give bi-partisan cover to democrats for bad legislation (cap-n-tax et al)!
3) Owens will NEVER pull the rug out from under Republican leadership in a floor fight regarding principle!
Yet Owens overall voting record will have little to distinguish it from that of the RINO we defeated.
jd
Do Not Feed the RINOs!
Sara Palin and Demint are patriotic faithful and dedicated to this country’s conservative values. Gingrich, Romney and Huckabee are flackie and they follow the changing winds. They are party Hacks looking for their endorsement. The big givers to the Republican Party are super Rinos hiding the liberal Democrat colors inside of them. Remember if they have not been faithful in the little things they will never be faithful in the big things.
Thank you, Adam. Good piece.
I appreciated the balanced and nuanced argument, as opposed to the conservative social-issues meat-ax approach. We have to be realistic (ref your observation re Delaware & Connecticut) but at the same time rightfully expect a reasonable level of adherence to the core principles of limited govt, free enterprise, and individual liberty.
Hoffman was a poor candidate, and while by 2010 the district may right itself, I do fear the wrong lesson may be taken from Tuesday. He not only lives outside the district, but he knows and seemed to care little about local issues while over-emphasizing social issues in a district which only cares about fiscal and governance issues. We needed a candidate like a McDonnell, we got one like the Republicans here in rural Georgia. And it was very damaging that outsides like Dick Armey were not only visibly trying to influence the local outcome, but did so in a condescending ideological fashion (the largest newspaper savaged Armey for calling local issues “parochial”.
The best news out of Tuesday is that we may get a significant crop of good candidates for 2010, early enough that they can be developed and tested and proven sufficiently in advance. As long as we don’t get carried away with narrow social-issue litmus tests but focus on the core issues of the *local* voters – ala McDonnell – we can win big.
CONSERVATIVE AMERICANS UNITE!!!! Do not lose your energy or your principles. There are a TON OF US and we will be heard!! We are FINALLY taking back our rightful place in this Country. We hardworking, self sufficient people are the majority, and we come in all colors and both sexes!! Keep showing your bold colors Conservatives!! Do not be bullied by political correctness, beltway politics, or elitism from liberals! Those who do not believe in the majority of our Conservative principles can go their own way!!!
NY-23 is a classic example of the fact that politics starts with people and relationships, and never stops being about people and relationships.
Idealogues forget that.
Real politicians don’t, and they win because of it.
The GOP as a group — left, right, and center — are unclear on this concept.
I read on several political web sites that no GOP official called Dede Scozzafava to console her after she withdrew.
No GOP national figure.
No GOP NY state figure.
None of the 11 GOP county chairmen who nominated her.
Not conservitive party candidate Doug Hoffman (Which marked him as not ready for prime time as a congressional candidate).
_NOT_A_SINGLE_ONE_.
Senator Shumer, the senior Democrat from New York, did, plus a number of other Democrats.
Dede Scozzafava endorsed Owen’s as a result and late deciders in the NY-23rd broke 3-to-1 for Owens and another 6% of local Republicans voted for Scozzafava in protest.
The story that comes to mind here is how Senator Harry Byrd of West Virginia personally flew to see then 29 year-old Senator-elect Joe Biden, immediately after Biden’s wife was killed in a horrible traffic accident after he was elected Senator but before he turned 30 and was sworn in. Biden was seriously considering resigning his seat before swearing in to take care of his kids.
Byrd did his level best to console Biden and convince him to stay in politics.
The GOP lacks such people.
It showed in the NY-23rd
Dennis@28: “…conservative social-issues meat-ax approach…” and
“As long as we don’t get carried away with narrow social-issue litmus tests.”
There is no fiscal conservative without their being a social conservative. Geez, will you libs stop trying to define us. The two are not mutually exclusive. That is a construct of the left–just like misnaming blue and red states.
A conservative does and will always stand by the social/moral issues confronting our nation today and tomorrow. How you can blithly sweep away 40 million babies being murdered and then call yourself a conservative is beyond me. Where is “individual liberty” for the child?
If you think the gay agenda is just about recognition and not a more nefarious and insidious program geared beyond then you are wide asleep at the wheel.
Since you do not live in the district (“…we got one like the Republicans here in rural Georgia.”) how do you know what the issues are/were? Did you know that the lines had been redrawn? Look up the definition of parochial–it means local.
Nice try on speaking for us conservatives but take care of your own party.
22. Now and Then: (again making this too easy for those who can walk and chew gum at the same time)
Democrats are not racist . . . how many times do I have to say this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFpfQpuuVzI&feature=related
31: blotto “If you think the gay agenda is just about recognition and not a more nefarious and insidious program geared beyond then you are wide asleep at the wheel.”
So gays really are all going to hell then?
Screw their expoitive adgenda whatever it is. I am proposing to defuse the issue entirely. To cut the legs out from under it.
What is the end game here? Oppose gay marriage for eternity?
errr…I mean… Oppose gay unions for eternity?
Seriously though, if Dick Cheney can not un-gay his daughter, then who? What is the plan to deal with gay people? Shall we treat them as lepers?
I find somewhat callous, those lines of reasoning that fall short of intellectual integrity and hint of hypocrisy. Because whether you can explain why or not, God DID intend for their existence. Or is that not true? Or did he them put them here only to make example of, thoughtful guy that he is? Is this stuff really really really what is the belief? Im out here in CA and have no clue.
Has anyone thought this through? Or is there a hidden adgenda I am missing? I really would just like to know if this ideology has an end game and if so what does it look like? Or is there no concept of an end game at all? I admit it is not essential, but not thinking things all the way through is how the Dems got themselves where they are today. And I am supremely interested to hear self-declared So-Co’s view on this. And I would also wonder If there are any that themselves have a had a gay child, and retained their views?
35. Distraught:The more libertarian minded persons on this forum are going to agree with you, the more social conservative are not.
I think that it’s a matter for the states because it’s not enumerated by the constitution. A recurring theme that you’ll find here is dissatisfaction with the republican party, principally as it applies to the debt and the deficit, that’s really the stuff thats looked at here and by the larger tea party movement as a whole, and thats something that I, as a more libertarian minded person am very grateful for.
The things that unite libertarians,fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives are what we should focus on. Let the social issues be the providence of the states. IF one state wants abortion and gay marriage, then that’s their deal.
Speaking of Mitt Romney, where has he been this past year? I haven’t heard anything about him at all recently.
@blotto
I would like to overlook your condescending tone, but your insulting language makes that difficult; congratulations. Still, I will try not stoop to your level of nastiness. All I will say is that such intolerance and attack destroys civil discourse and honest debate. That’s what I expect to find at the DailyKos.
There are millions of folks who believe in limited govt, strong defense, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty who are more moderate on social issues. Many identify themselves as conservatives, many as independents. The whole point here is, the results Tuesday overwhelming show that the McDonnell model is the winning approach. Ralph Reed summarized it well:
“The Republican party is not a church. It does not promulgate doctrine and then exclude those who fail to share it. But political parties must stand for something . . . The more likely future for the GOP was seen in Virginia, where a stalwart conservative, Bob McDonnell, won the strong backing of prominent moderates . . . McDonnell never trimmed his philosophical sails and never back-tracked on his pro-family, tax-cutting, pro-growth views, but his moderate temperament and inclusive leadership style attracted the support of not only moderate Republicans and 2 out of every 3 independents . . . I never heard a single complaint from moderates in the party about McDonnell’s conservative views or his background as a Regent University graduate or favorite of the pro-family community. They respected his views and admired his ability to build bridges as a leader and problem-solver. Conservatives should look for more McDonnells in the years to come if they truly want to become a majority again.”
Or this from Ramesh Ponnuru:
“What these races suggest is that Republicans’ principal problem in recent elections has not been that they are too far right, or — as a lot of conservatives like to think — not far right enough. After all, voters turned on both moderate and conservative Republicans in the late Bush years. The problem has instead been that voters have not thought Republicans of any stripe had answers to their most pressing concerns. Addressing those concerns, rather than repositioning itself along the ideological spectrum, is the party’s main challenge.”
Just to be clear for the record: The egregious remarks about my views on the gay agenda and abortion are way off the mark. And as far as the outcome in NY, everything I cited was from local sources. Differences however that I will note: I believe that conservative principles allow for a range of views and solutions; I prefer positive persuasion to attract others to a big tent as opposed to pushing them away with rigidity and hate; and, I accept the reality that in order to win elections and successfully govern a country where we are the minority, we must work together as conservatives of slightly different flavors.
30. Trent Telenko wrote:
I read on several political web sites that no GOP official called Dede Scozzafava to console her after she withdrew.
_NOT_A_SINGLE_ONE_.
Senator Shumer, the senior Democrat from New York, did, plus a number of other Democrats.
Peter writes: Well of course the Leftists would call to console one of their own.
And were I in the NYS Republica Party, Dede’s number certainly wouldn’t be on my quick-dial, ESPECIALLY after she showed exactly how much class she had after being found out as the liberal leftist she truly is.
Distraught – You said exactly one sentence that made sense: “I’m out her in CA and have no clue.” I agree. Your posts wander all over the place, using many words to say not much of anything. Purely mushy thinking. I will address the only thing I could see of any coherence, the gay issue.
If they keep pushing their agenda, I will keep fighting them for eternity. I’m willing to allow them certain things, because I hate the sin, but love the sinner. This will, however, never be enough for some of them.
(Btw, God didn’t make them this way. He gave us free will. To get into Heaven, we have to give it back and choose God’s ways.)
You seem to have command of the English language, but you seem to have no center, no roots, no foundational principles. You sound very confused. I think it is time for you to access the wisdom of the ages. Crack open a Bible. Study it. Forget all the nonsense you have been fed in CA. Learn about the real nature of mankind. You won’t be so confused, then.
Two glaringly terrible things about the Scozzafava candidacy-
1)the Republicans squandered $900,000 of money that WE, the conservative Republicans, entrusted to them to help elect more conservatives. This is an abuse.Which shows that…
2)the RNC cannot be trusted with our money. Give to candidates directly. The RNC clearly does not represent conservative interests, nor does it make proper use of our hard earned, over taxed dollars. All this excess cash floating around has a bad effect on the people who distribute it. Give locally and give specifically. Throw those letters from the RNC in the trash where they belong.
36. baal: Thanks for the cool perspective.
I understand not everything needs to be solved at once. Though I often find in my other life, that by looking at where I want things to end up I gain insight into the various routes at which to arrive there. Sometimes these insights are game-changing, i.e. I may find that a route, which I knew would get me to the finish, ends up being a bigger headache in the end than one which seemed less appealling at first.
40: Marc, Wow. Great to hear how you feel. How many gay people have you had the pleasure of interacting with? I have to say that the summary belief that gays have no choice, less rational to me than thinking that the 4.5 billion year old earth will overheat soon despite that it is currently cooling, disregards the volume of evidence that is human history, not too mention some interesting medical results (real data watch out) concerning gender abnormalities… but nm.
I do appreciate you sharing your perspective with me. I, and many other americans I suspect, are really more practical people. I see their existence at every point in history as somewhat convincing evidence that its a natural phenomena. Otherwise it means God just keeps giving some people the shaft. But a sadist God you can have… and lepers they shall be. I will remind you that Jesus loved the lepers too.
There are 300 million people here… this is not like some tribe in Israel, Im sorry.
Re-reading baal’s nice lowdown :36… which of course makes perfect rational sense for a man of my persuasion, who only wants to remove the issue from the federal landscape, and free the GOP from the slur of intolerance.
“The things that unite libertarians,fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives”
Can’t help but notice that I fit only the middle one of these. I would oppose drug legalization just as strongly as obamacare, for both would destroy the fabric of this country. And I oppose the relegation of ANY human to second class status, also for the same reason. But I can be much more specific, as this violates something I hold very sacred:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” and it goes on to discuss particulars, but does not make any distinction of men therein.
I am familiar with the bible though not nearly as much as I would like. But I would now ask a So-Co if they could tell me what does the bible have to do with it now that I have reminded you of this Nation’s founding document…
I am dreaming of a party of reason and transparency. That it is all. Any homosexual would have to be out of his mind to vote for anything even afiliated with this type of so-co, for if you succede he runs the high risk of not. And my whole argument was that its not even about THEIR vote, but the votes of those might no longer be repelled.
The reason this allures me, if may now give my assesment of whats REALLY going on, is that the chances seem fair that policies identified as Democratitic will across the nation come more to be viewed as not so much unpopular… but irresponsible given the state of things. And this no more so then in CA. And to be honest, the GOP brand is so tarnished it most likely could not do anything for me hear in the next decade.
However, another party that only promised accountability and fiscal responsibility, without such a socially negative stigma, could tap a swell you do not yet grasp. And when I think about where the END-GAME is, I am at this point in time willing to wager that the GOP will NOT be there, because eventually we will grow tired of this never-ending mudthrowing, you insist on throwing at each other over our heads, while abjecting the duties PROMISED to us.
I really hope the GOP takes scalps in 2010, I just don’t think this kinda of approach to dealing with people can change the culture in washington.
Btw, I’m not a RINO. Quite the opposite. The GOP does not have my party affiliation, only my vote, as I am just a poor soul with no better alternative.
Ya know what’s really interesting? (Forgive me if someone’s made this point already, I just skimmed the comments.)
The moderate candidate actually won… Scozzafava was actually to the left of Owens… she supported both gay marriage and card-check, and Owens favored civil unions and opposed card-check.
Now, all you DIRC-supporters, tell us again how “moderate” she was.
Newt is not a RINO. Newt explained himself well on FOX last evening. His focus is on marginal numbers and ultimate control of the House and perhaps rightfully so. I initially disagreed with him and thought he was in the wrong however, the Democrats added an additional seat to their numbers on Tuesday. That is worth pondering some.
With only a few exceptions, the entire Republican Party is made up of RINOs.
To baal @36 and Distraught:
baal wrote: “The things that unite libertarians,fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives are what we should focus on. Let the social issues be the providence of the states. IF one state wants abortion and gay marriage, then that’s their deal.”
First, what you essenially said is let us exclude the social conservatives. You cannot expect to include the social conservatives in your coalition and then reject their issues.
Second, federalism is dead. It might be revived but for now it is dead and the liberals will always seek to use the federal government to coerce the states. Therefore, social conservatism most compete at the federal level or allow the liberals to impose their liberal social values upon us.
Until the 1960s/1970s there was no national gay agenda. The majority of the population did not even consider gay marriage as a potential issue. The practice of homosexuality itself was often outlawed. All of that has changed in the past 40 years. Supporters of the gay agenda have essentially forced their social values upon society and demanded to be recognized. Why are you guys not up in arms about a liberal group that has hoisted its values upon us, mainly through the un-constitutional use of the judiciary?
How can you fiscal conservatives and libertarians say you are for limited government when you would allow the government the power to kill the innocent – abortion and euthanasia – and redefine the oldest institution known to man?
What the heck, might as well just air it all out…
Creationism in the Science Class?
In reality, we know this is an unpopular idea with the majority, and the movement has no legs. But the attempt alone is deterring and alarming to some, and DEFINATELY comes not without a price. Does anyone remember when there was a push to teach homosexuality in kindergarten or something? Well honestly, if I try, I can with little difficulty see the same speculation about this intention, as that one. Can you? Try it from the perspective of being inclined NOT to adopt it.
Now, I would of course demand Creationism be discussed in a religion course. I also see it rightly apropriate to discuss the book of genesis in a History course. But this idea should not have any business being on a lesson plan in a Science class; questions could always be posed but it must not be presented by the authority as belonging in the realm of scientific analysis.
You see it is troubling to me because I think the great thing about Science is that it is the one field in which you can, at least in theory, really ever know if you are right. I think this is a more important institution than some would believe, especially in this day and age, and the attempt to inject Creationism is a direct attack to its foundation, as it is NOT theoretically provable (unlike evolution) and only helps to cloud the distinction between belief and fact. Frankly, it is my opinion that talking about homosexuality would be far more appropriate for a functioning society, though I would not support that either; far more useful than the concept of creation in 7, 24 hour days, as beautiful and sublime as it admittidly is.
And Im not asking why it has to be 7×24 hours, nor why it not impossible that through the passage through time, from mouth and then to text, the symbol that eventually was “day” might have had its meaning tweaked along the way. Alas these questions have no answers. Personally a like the idea that God IS the universe, the laws in which we live being the very tip of his fingers… but I would never dream of forcing any to believe or even be aware of it.
What I will do, is remind you about a particular problem we have with the ‘factuality’ of scientific opinions concerning our climate – which I would not call conclusive but sketchy at best. And I would hope one might take pause, and maybe consider thinking such things through before defaulting to the primal position that what works for you will work for two (three… and so on).
(PS: Thanks for putting up with me today, I think. And thank God for pajamasmedia and the like, he only knows where we’d be without it)
I’ve spent a lot of summers in NY-23 and I strongly suspect that the locals were po’d at the outsider interference. As for next year, it’s my understanding that NY-23 won’t even exist after the next redistricting. As for the kerfuffles over gay rights and abortion, spare me. I don’t give a crap about that or race or religion. Obama and his Marxist minions are burning down our fiscal and constitutional house and some of us want to argue about the china pattern. We better focus, people, or we are hosed. Especially on homosexuality, there are a WHOLE bunch of people who don’t want to hear it. Drop it. I’m not saying support it, just ignore it.
48. Kipling:
“First, what you essenially said is let us exclude the social conservatives. You cannot expect to include the social conservatives in your coalition and then reject their issues.”
Err.. yeah, I think you may be refering to my dithering about how I “Can’t help but notice that I fit only the [fiscal conservative] of these.” And that was me just wandering into to my unsaid question of, “Where is the party for people like me?” and then not pointing out specifically that at times it seems it can be neither R nor L. This says nothing about how I would vote of course.
“Therefore, social conservatism most compete at the federal level or allow the liberals to impose their liberal social values upon us.”
Well, my goal was only to propose a rationalization of the national platform. My answer to that issue is basicaly, “choose your state wisely”, but its only fair to me, and I firmly believe natural segregation will work its magic. food for thought, see if you can even fake yourself into seeing any logic in it, if even small.
“Why are you guys not up in arms about a liberal group that has hoisted its values upon us, mainly through the un-constitutional use of the judiciary?”
I come off that dumb eh? I will admit to never being writer of anything I didnt have to and sacrificing clarity for even more time but, well, I just really wanted to know if it is a possibility in my lifetime that social conservatives could wake up, and the GOP might assume an ascendancy.
“How can you … redefine the oldest institution known to man?”
I know its too long but the big post above discussed the m-word, and what one might consider doing to it, and it still has ‘marriage’ being between a man and a woman (man you guys really want to have your cake and eat it, geez). But the basic contradiction is that ‘marriage’, having its dual use, is not commensurate with the separation of church and state. This can’t be that big of a stretch.
To Distraught @49: I am beginning to question your motives here. You seem to jump a lot from topic to topic without fully discussing any threads that you initiate. In #49 you jump from your previous topic of gay marriage to teaching creationism in the classroom. What is your underlying point, concern, or issue? What is your point of departure? What is the authority in your life that determines your worldview and your basic assumptions about life?
The problem with science is that it does not provide the certainty that you seek. Science addresses the lower story questions of life but by its nature can not address the higher story questions of life – i.e. purpose, origins, the nature of truth, questions of value, etc. Even in the lower story questions of life, science has a horrible track record. The science that we accept today is built upon the science we previously discarded. Are we so arrogant to think that we now have all the answers?
Science is based upon observation and all observations are based on certain assumptions. The more assumptions the more possibility of error. Observation also leads to interpretation and interpretation opens itself up to error and to bias and distortion. Science is a frail reed to lean upon.
To Distraught @51: Marriage is an institution that predates the church so it is hardly a separation of church and state issue. It has been the foundation of western civilization since the Greeks and yet you would change it on the whim of a movement that began less than 40 years ago and represents less than 10% of the population.
Kipling:
I’d be happy to discuss anything if interested if I might humbly ask to avert it for the moment. I’m feeling too spent to wade into that fortress, but I will say something about what Science is (err.. please don’t, there is one definition only… have to agree to this for me to discuss), cause I don’t like leaving people knowing they have the wrong idea.
Science, in my words this minute, is the process of making and explaining measurements. A measurement is accepted if it is repeatable, and good if it explains something, meaning, if the actual outcome determines some physical quantity. This relation is usually made by theory, and it is true until the next one comes along to prove it false in some OTHER experiment (It will always be correct in predicting the first – and without the second, Science would have no business preferring one over the other).
But none of this is really makes sense I suppose, and I distress yet, I whisper to you, for your understanding, that no one could ever propose nor conduct a measurement determining whether or not God created the earth in 168 hours, and therefore it is not the business of Science (Zero probability – how to make it repeatable). Its not that big a deal really and frankly I wouldn’t want me God beholden to any science. Look, its very similar to String Theory, except there is a finite probability that there WILL be a measurement that could test it, and that would be a REALLY good measurement, though you can ask… it is not science yet.
I think things may be more clear to me now and I thank all for that. And so now the question I riddle is:
If I list what I would guess might be the defining principles of social conservatism I would get:
abortion – (my wife’s insides)
marriage – (my friend’s self worth)
creationism – (my son’s view of reality)
Religion?… meh, we don’t suppose that is so-co’s virtue alone.
family values? my guess is that it is covered above.
So I am wondering what I am missing? If nothing, then I feel super guilty for tapping so many of your pillars; I am not trying to threaten anything but maybe give some tough love, like:
The fact is that these religious positions, if thats what they are, seem somewhat imposing.
In response to Distraught @54:
By your own definition of science, evolution should not be taught in a science course. There is no process for measuring the evolutionary process and it is not repeatable.
On another point, how can a scientific theory be true until another theory proves it to be false. If it can be proven false, then it was never true. It might have been mistakenly accepted as true but in actuality it was always false.
The principles of social conservatism are much deeper than the three you listed. In fact – abortion, marriage, and creationism – are not principles at all but rather the natural outworking of much deeper principles. Here are a few of the deeper principles. Please tell me with which you disagree.
1. The sanctity of human life. All individuals have value and should be treated accordingly. Therefore, social conservatives oppose policies that cheapen human life – i.e. abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, health care death panels, health care rationing, tyrannical unlimited government, etc.
2. The sanctity of marriage and the family. Marriage is the building block of western civilization and the foundation of any functional society. Marriage should not be entered into lightly, nor should it be discarded on a mere whim. The family is the next building block of society as it provides for the nurturing and instruction of the next generation. Therefore, social conservatives oppose policies that lead to the destruction of marriage and the family – no fault divorce, welfare, absentee fathers, spousal abuse, government run daycare, public education coerced by the federal government and removed from local control, the glorification of self-indulgence, etc.
3. Freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state is a Biblical principle practiced in both the Old and New Testament. The problem is that liberals and some libertarians do not want a separation of church and state. They want a separation of the state from God. They want the state to disregard all moral mandates from God and to not acknowledge His headship over the state. In so doing, liberals and likeminded libertarians actually elevated the state as the highest authority and makes the state unanserable to a higher power. The Founding Fathers, even Jefferson, would not accept such a premise.
4. Support for the classical virtues and moral character – honesty, hardwork, diligence, thrift, self-control, self-disciplined, peaceful, self-reliant, and countless others. Therefore, socil conservatives oppose policies and actions that undermine these virtues and contribued to the undermining of individual character. Social conservatives do not claim to be perfect in these virtues but everyone should strive for perfection. I would also note that these virtues will lead to the fiscal restraint you fiscal conservatives want. However, you can not expect to get the fruit without first plantng the seeds and watering the plant.
Although I will stop there, you can plainly see that that social conservatives encompasses much more than what you think. I would also point out that these are not necessarily religious issues but are principles essential to western civilization.
I’m not being trolled am I… Theories are used to explain and propose experiments. But I can still measurement how high I can pee up the wall. I don’t have to be thinking of a theory to look at the mark on the wall. No theory necessary to propose that measurement. Theory is interesting when it has the POSSIBILITY of explaining something, and of course this means with new measurements.
No more Science posts on this thread pls my friend… to many things to cover. It would be helpful if you just take an open mind and try to see the logic. You might have come up with some toy examples like this one:
- Test for Evolution
1) Put a colony of ants (or primordial goo + lightning or whatever) in a controlled environment.
2) Wait
3) If speciel variations appear, outcome = TRUE, else Keep waiting
4) Eternity arrives. outcome = FALSE.
NOTE: proving true is possible. False is not. Does that matter for Science. NO NO NO. It can still be proven true.
For repeatability, just have multiple boxes (repeatability = “consistency over independent measurements”). I am saying nothing about how conclusive this one is. Clearly it might matter on which and how many species you start with and the environmental factors.
creationism – 1) Click my heals, twinkle my nose, wiggle my ears…. what? you tell me?
I can’t even think of physical law by how which this could be done. If you want to propose a new one that is fine. It won’t be science until there is at least in theory, at some point, a measurement to test it.
Done! see. cool huh, science. Ok, now let me see if there is anything in the rest of your post discussable now… you still wont tell me why you thinks its ok to make 300 million people do like you on every single issue, some are justifiably ancillary. And even if you dont see that, its just irrational to be unwilling to compromise an inch anywhere for the greater good, and possibly to save the country. Look, the bible was written in a time when everyone you needed to worry about was within shouting distance (if you will) and that is just not so now. It is not rational to think those ‘principles’, as you call them (kinda subjective at first glance… maybe beliefs?), should carry over directly to a community of 300 million, with no modification. This is not the wisdom of someone capable of leadership.
correction:
leadership of 300 million… (think loftier than Reaganism).
Response to Distraught @56: Your posts are digressing into the absurd and your resort to juvinile ridicule is rather disappointing for someone who earlier claimed to want honest discussion. Instead of honest discussion you only offer misdirection. For example, I have never once argued for creationism. I simply pointed out that your definition of science was so off base that by your own definition evolution could not be taught in a science course. Your response was to explain how you urinate on your walls at home and that becomes your example of the scientific method. Oh, how we have advanced in the 21st century.
You also refused to address any of the issues I raised @ 55. Which of those four social conservative principles would you encourage us to compromise for the greater good? How would you define the greater good anyway? Who is to determine the greater good? Are we so arrogant that we think someone among us is so intelligent to dictate the greater good?
Please do not take the time to respond if you intend to do so with the same absurdity and vulgarity used @ 56. I have neither the time or the inclination to play hall monitor to a junior high intellectual.
Gulp… Sorry to offend you. Probably a generational think so I’ll try to remember. Honestly though I thought it added some classroom humor; science can be boring. And, I don’t think its stupid at all. In fact I conduct that measurement quite often in my shower. It is actually quite repeatable on a full bladder (apologies in advance); about 4.5 tiles up from the soap tray.
Also, sorry for not getting back on @ 55 yet. As I said I was gonna take a look at it. did, wrote some stuff. got distracted with a post on the other page, wrote way more than intended of course… but uh, maybe it’ll fly here. Anyway, sorry bout that. back to it…
But can say, the greater good, while clearly in this context is better governance, could also just be loving thy neighbor.
But back to science again, I will remind you that I wrote, “Science, in my words this minute, is the process of making and explaining measurements”. And I qualified because It was off the top of my head. I still think its got all the essentials, note having looked it up or anything. I can’t really understand yours, but I think it talked alot about “assumptions” and I don’t know what that has to do with anything because a theory either predicts the actual outcome or it doesn’t.
A theory, of any worth, can be used to predict the outcome of many experiments. And it IS true by definition if it does correctly, and it IS false (in that application) by definition when it does. I mean, I’m not trying to sound childish, as I think you said, but just trying to go slow. And if you are holding me to the wording then… I don’t know what to say, but maybe your father was strict in addition to wise.
The evolution experiment and science definition are correct in proving the distinction between evolution and creationism.
It shows not only that evolution can be tested, but so could the evolution that occurred on earth bringing us to today. Maybe one day we can plant our own planet using evolution; I bet you God would be proud.
This is where someone else needs to chime in I think, lest the casual reader not tell the difference. Anyone? I hate leaving misunderstandings.
I am glad you agree there is no possible experiment to test the Creationism theory.
- Sorry for taking so long… Slow at writing and some background distractions.
Kipling:
“… deeper principles…”.
I like this term as you used it so lets agree on that definition. If I may restate: once – “broad positions”, and more specifically – “general principles that would not appear by name in a piece of legislation or whatever”. Hope that sounds good.
1. The sanctity of human life.
“All individuals have value and should be treated accordingly” – Did you specifically leave out “equal”?
- abortion – I don’t vote on this issue, cause Im not a woman, Its great if eventually its not around. But I will say the idea that there won’t be one state where people with enough money can get a safe abortion, in the next 100 years, is a recipe for disaster.
- euthanasia – No one wants this. Especialy after health care ‘reform’.
- assisted suicide – This is not OK. Besides you should have to go through a lot of trouble.
- health care death panels – same as above
- health care rationing – same as above
- tyrannical unlimited government – Super majority issue. maybe goes in the ‘deep princeples’ category?
2. The sanctity of marriage and the Family
– no fault divorce – We have to have this, that is one that I would shove down throats. see euthanasia.
- welfare – Easy. Government entitlements un-teach ability to support oneself.
- absentee fathers – Yeah, I guess. not sure what exactly but sounds like a PR winner.
- spousal abuse – Everyone should support the harshest punishment for the violation of the most basic human trusts. (children-parent, wife-husband)
- government run daycare – Oh heck no. I assume you mean for public.
- public education coerced by the federal government and removed from local control – Thats a winner (sure you mean that?) – actually thats really good I think, that might be popular all over since government is viewed so badly now.
- the glorification of self-indulgence – Mmm, Not sure how it would sell, sounds good. in ‘deep principle’ bin.
3. Freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.
“The separation of church and state is a Biblical principle practiced in both the Old and New Testament.”
Yes. You know I don’t even think one needs to apply to the Bible, its kinda of implicit in Declaration and or should be (They were escaping from religious and political tyranny so I have to imagine this is an easy thing to appeal.) I say this cause if the word ‘Bible’ doesnt need to be referenced in a ruling document, and the same principle founded, then it probably makes for smoother sailing.
“The problem is that liberals and some libertarians do not want a separation of church and state. They want a separation of the state from God.”"
Yes, they do. And we can not let them do it. However, I just realized how can this be enforced if schools are not under federal control?
“They want the state to disregard all moral mandates from God and to not acknowledge His headship over the state.”
I like how that sounds actually. But this is alas, a metaphor. God’s Law, or at least the 10 commandments, are not state law. Not that we can’t make them, but it is just a metaphor, yet you are applying it to the other side.
4. Support for the classical virtues and moral character
– honesty, hardwork, diligence, thrift, self-control, self-disciplined, peaceful – All sound great. Any real issues to legislate?
- self-reliant – Yes. limited welfare. I think attendance at self-help and finance programs should be mandatory for receipt of funds.
“Social conservatives do not claim to be perfect in these virtues but everyone should strive for perfection.”
This adds a nice touch.
- This stuff a wrote most earlier, cause it was what came to me after first read (first posted ‘quick’ about science even though I said I wouldn’t, but I’m a sucker for it, just be gentle).
Look, what you have listed there is (part) of a belief system, or way of life, which I guess thats what the platform is (remember Im still coming up to speed). And honestly, your parents must be or have been(my respects) proud, and I could only hope I can install the same in mine. But I don’t feel that I need to impose them on 150,000,000 other different people. Hence the question of why you do?
And it really baffles me that the ones who most procaim to follow Jesus think that he would have used the government to bring people closer to God (or wait… is this just so YOU get closer). Did he not say:
“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”
I wonder how many really know what it means. I doubt I will ever really understand its genius, but it has taught me many things to consider, like maybe it means:
The “Kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of man” are distinct and Keep it so.
OR
Do not appeal the Lord of Caesar’s sin of greed, Caesar claims ownership and thus it is his. (Note the sin here – just came out that way, cause always thought of it as a reply to a plea against unfare taxation)
The ‘principles’ I and many speak of, I think, are of a more on the end side of things, not so much deep principles defining broad controls, which are in reality lofty goals. I could try to formulate some if you like (fiscal responsibility = stay in the red). Too many positions today are convoluted, not that yours are, or coercive into a total way of life. Im kinda thinking of the lefts gay issue. But I think you should know that some on your side can garner the same anxiety in many; just like some feel this way:
31: blotto “If you think the gay agenda is just about recognition and not a more nefarious and insidious program geared beyond then you are wide asleep at the wheel.”
I am pleading to the religious right because, as I think Sowell re-iterated recently, it has the benefit of familiarity with the concept of a principle, while the left is just free floating in the wind and has no hope of appealing to with reason, only heartstrings.
I am glad you are so God fearing, but God also wants you be a member of the society you live in; if you will, “give unto Caesar”.
My hope is that the wisdom might be found in the Right, the wisdom so needed as I see our great Nation’s mortality materializing before my very eyes. It’s like no one even understands what happens if the credit rating drops. Maybe instead they are all worried about ‘principles’ like yours. While clearly I am an alarmist, such un-compromising nature about things happening 1000-miles away makes me pessimistic.
Look, the federal government just needs to WORK. It is the darn girding of the whole kit’n kaboodle. Can we please just have a simple sturdy design made of uniform steel. The Right and the Left can paint there areas whatever color they like. But both sides do largely want to have their color as the undercoat, and in part so that it always shows throw on the other side. But who is right? This is a prescription for an endless war of attempts at subjugation.
- Btw, I looked at your link a bit ago, and read half the post about Liberatarianism and I thought of saying this:
I guess Im asking if you can allow different portions of society to agree to allow the descent into sin of a SMALL few, allow them to have free will in that.
Ive said this on some earlier post but I just wanted to be safe:
Hopefully I don’t need to say I’d vote against allowing late-term abortion, as I think most would. This should never see the light of day in anything but emergency circumstances. I personally, think if you can’t decide in a month, then you probably should ask for help in making the decision – probably true for most things too. Not even knowing what current law is, I wonder if maybe most would support 1st trimester only, again except for exceptional cases.
haste makes waste… Correction 2:
“- health care death panels – same as above”
Should Be:
- health care death panels – same as euthanasia.
AND
“– no fault divorce – We have to have this, that is one that I would shove down throats. see euthanasia.”
Should be:
– no fault divorce – We can NOT have this, that is one that I would shove down throats. see assisted suicide.
and Correction 3:
“- public education coerced by the federal government and removed from local control – Thats a winner (sure you mean that?) – actually thats really good I think, that might be popular all over since government is viewed so badly now.”
Okay, I miss understood, cause I saw “coerced” and didn’t parse carefully, but I think that it might be of tough sell, given what I did saw. Furthermore, we have to think of when out of power as well, and did you see those videos of school children chanting his name… we have to protect against that too.
And It occurs to me now, just to make sure there was no offense, the strict comment was in jest – my father was a disciplinarian – and the wise part was is reference to the statement I made in the following post, which I had actually written before, where I noted that your comprehensive set of principles reflect a very good upbringing; I hope its ok to assume that.
Look, I’m on your side, though you may not think so. I’m just more pragmatic, and know certain things are here to stay.
In case I didn’t fully answer the questions…
“You also refused to address any of the issues I raised @ 55. Which of those four social conservative principles would you encourage us to compromise for the greater good?”
Well, I would hope none. I would hope that you could fully enforce all of principles 1 and 2 in your state. Let me be specific:
I would encourage you to not vote against national candidates in the primaries for either refraining from, or preferably DO somehow indicate they have no inclination to push for, and especially if its something like:
“we have many more important things to keep us busy till, well re-election, before I’ll even contemplate either”:
(A) overturning Roe v. Wade.
(B) a marriage amendment.
OR
(B alt) consider my long winded proposal from redefining what words are used on the tax forms, and preserve the definition of marriage for ever.
I spent a lot of time posting here showing different rationales for things, hopefully not all crazy. I know I have been playing devil’s advocate very hard. That is all I would “ask” of you.
“How would you define the greater good anyway?”
That which brings A, as never before seen, functioning body to the capitol; asap.
“Who is to determine the greater good?”
I don’t know. That maybe be a totally subjective term. But I like to think its that which, if scaled to any size, would bring the most rewarding life on Earth as well as in Heaven; This is my own personal theory of what Jesus retrieved from the deep where he often spoke with to Lord, those days out in the desert.
“Are we so arrogant that we think someone among us is so intelligent to dictate the greater good?”
No, I assumed you would agree with mine. I suppose that could have been one of my fallacies.
Kipling, now I am wondering if you, or anyone else, can answer one thing, of a million, about the bible that I still haven’t figured out:
Well to preface, It seems to me, its possible there may be I slight punt, in terms of parenting specifics. And the two best ways I have been able to pose the question are this:
1) Father and son walk down sidewalk. Passer by of decrepit appearance stops and asks for change. If it so happens that he did not think fortuitously, and the boy is between him and the Passer. Should the father not call the child near, if not pull him, and disregard the feelings of the other? I just haven’t been able to see how Jesus would do this.
In another but extreme formulation… Would Jesus have us weigh our the sin of not-protecting the child against the sin of being a bad samaritan, and all in the quick of time?
2) If we are not supposed to judge… like someone’s inner soul, how are we suppose to pick our wife/husband?
Thanks in advance.
Forgive the miriad of unexcusable misspells sure to be in all my posts, and trust I struggle quite vigorously as it is with a horribly pretentious trackpad and a keyboard for a woman. Also, frankly, elegance is not my concern right now. Also, I regret having spilled myself all over such that you will have to get to here, and then go back and rehash with this updated definition, maybe. I imagine one might not be satisfied just yet, and I so I delve further (and at writing really did not know where I would end up going but… have fun).
- Modification #1 million:
59. Distraught:
“a theory either predicts the actual outcome or it doesn’t”
I could have been more detailed and expanded this to something like the following:
A theory is either correct, proven incorrect for certain or all measurements, or it is in the third state of unproven theories that propose, or are likely to propose, new measurements to test it.
Generally the funding for the research of these theories is in proportion to their likelihood and importance. Hence String theory gets little, as it still hasn’t proposed a test that could be done in the next millenia, and of course the clock is always running. When funding runs out, then the theory becomes fodder, often for others. But no one would spend a dime to fund the study of creationism theory in a university science department.
I’ll note that the Higgs boson (hype of LHC) does not have its founding in string theory, yet that theory might explain, among many many other things like mass and numbers special to God, the properties of the particle, if it is found, that could be different from what we might expect, as nature at times turns out to be.
Which brings to mind the curious case of Paul A. M. Dirac. He stumbled into God’s garden on a piece of paper, perhaps caught him off guard, and proclaimed to all a new flower not yet seen. And it was so, a year or two later seen. It was dubbed the positron, as it is the anti-particle of the electron.
What does “anti” mean? nothing really, other than its the other type from what we are used to. They are like mirror images of each other, and I could almost say they are like opposite points on a circle, in order show that one is not preferred, they are just opposites and one can be smoothly ‘rotated’ to the position of the other… it is one of a set of 2, same as the group of -1 and 1, which when you combine get 0, and likewise when an electron and a positron coincide they are destroyed, leaving behind just light light, which is one possible reason we don’t see the anti, err I shouldn’t say that nm. But the heart of the idea is the question of whether an electron here and electron on the moon are the same and, in a sense, the answer is you have to bring them together to find out, and you will find they are either inline or anti-particles, and in the latter you would see it).
No clearly Dirac was a great man. Blessed by the Lord. As people stumble upon new predictions all the time but rarely propose a completely different type of matter – of which there will be only 2 (neglecting dark, which I’m not personally convinced is physical matter yet, but I’m a realist, and even so the ‘matter’ it refers to is not necessarily new matter, but just not detectable, and I would have to assume that if it is matter, it too just comes in 2 types, but I digress)… a new type of matter based solely on the beauty and simplicity of his ‘equation’.
Here brave insight armed with the mechanics and bizarre objects of Mathematics (another science – these things have the odd behavior of requiring you go around them twice before it looks exactly same, more or less – and yes, physical electrons are such things, and no, no one as of yet can really explain that to you, but its what predicts the real world, you could never guess it with out the math I don’t think, digressing again)… with insight and math produced a physical theory that no one could even possibly imagine by looking at the world around us. For these things do not exist in nature, at least in this part of the universe.
In fact this is the way it often is. Just now I wonder if that is what marks our scientific pursuit of the world around us this century (or past whatever – probably wrong and not new). Maybe one could say, initially scientific theories were driven by explaining what people saw around them, and then, after gaining confidence and consistency, turned to the raw machinery of the mathematical theory as divine aide to explain and predict the world around.
At the risk of foot-in-mouth, I want to say this might have its origins 300 years ago in Newton, as he made the mathematical leap, inventing calculus to solve the motion of celestial bodies. Leibnitz is also credited with inventing the calculus (if I recall, more from the integral side), completely independent in Austria and soon after (accused of copying too). And as many might know, calculus is one of the most powerful truths we have discovered; it is kinda the doorway between the discrete and the continuous… the rational and the infinite. And note that it was discovered twice, with 2 independent measurements; of course this is just of providential significance, as its truth once known can be shown in many ways. And, just remembered, I think that Ramanujan also came up with ideas of calculus around the turn of the century, on his own, as well as pretty much the rest of math to that point, in India with minimal text, and most while in his teens.
But back to Dirac for one last point. While he clearly was blessed by God, my guess is he lived a somewhat tortured life. He is said to have introduced himself once at conference as, “Hello, I’m Paul Dirac and I have an equation named after me… Do you?”. And so… well… he clearly was no Einstein in that regard, but maybe it explains his supreme confidence. Now generally when I think of such things I am reminded of the relativity of it all. That, what is sufferable to one can be comforting to another. And I wonder sometimes if, in the end, that’s what makes it all work, for all our lives bob up and down, both rich and poor, and none can be made equal, no matter what Marx might think. And so if all can be fulfilled, which I like to believe, than it stands to imply there might be some equivalency.
Anyway, while I am aware I may have enjoyed that more than you, if it wasn’t old news I hope what was waded through was at least informative.
And, almost forgot… as you might agree, Creationism theory doesn’t fit in the 3rd category either.
re-reading that just now I am struck with the possibility that it may be my favorite so far in all my cruel battles with my mind, pen, and paper. So few they were, and yet so very very painful…. and I thank You for giving that to me.
And…. for any one who would point out that eventually you end up running out of things to explain around you anyway, I refrained. I did so cause it was ancillary as the process started before they world grew familiar.
Response to Distraught @59-65: I will ignore the generational comment and respond to a few of the issues you raised.
1. The exact quote from Scripture is “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17) In answering his political enemies, Jesus requested a Roman denarius and used it as an illustration. The coin had an image of Caesar on one side with an inscription claiming the divinity of the emperor thus making him worthy of worship and veneration. (See also the Roman cult of the emperor.) It is clear from the context that the statement actually placed a limit on the power and authority of Caesar. Caesar could lay claim to taxes but he had no right to claim divinity, worship, or veneration because that rightly belonged to God.
Scripture offers two images of human government. The government that submits to the headship of God and obeys His moral command is portrayed as a tree that spreads out over the land. It provides peace to the countryside and the birds and animals (people) find shelter, protection, and nurishment from it. Government that rejects the headship of God and refuses to submit to His moral authority is portrayed as a violent beast. It has power and ferocity but no moral compass. Such a beast can only steal, kill, and destory. It cannot build. It cannot establish peace and prosperity.
One can hope all day but a fiscally responsible, limited government, that respects the rights of its people will only come about when that government submits itself to the headship of God and acknowledges moral absolutes.
2. Your remark about my willingness to enforce my belief upon others misses the point and lacks historical context. Until the 20th century, these moral beliefs were accepted by all of western civilization. A hundred years ago, those who rejected the concept of moral absolutes were considered lunatics and separated from society. Since the 1960s our society has accepted the presence of lunatics in our midst and now even elects them to high office. And we wonder why western civilization has begun to crumble.
All governments enforce a concept of morality on their citizens. Even libertarians, who consider individual autonomy the highest moral good, would have government enforce their concept of morality. The question is: What is the source of morality? Does each individual get to determine what is moral and what is not? If so, then we will have societal anarchy. What is the source?
Nice schpeal, Kipling. I found it coherent and passionate, yet I also found myself getting lost in the metaphors and eventually leaving a mindset in which I could envision their manifestation without strain. I’ll give a go to see if we can make any further identifications.
“government submits itself to the headship of God”
A) Isn’t specific enough for everyone to understand, cause for one not everyone is Christian as we do not have a califate remember.
B) Is not required as in fact, God did not say to make Caesar submit to him. Caesar had free will tax whatever he wish, and God said not otherwise. I guess the question is where exactly is the line? Again here we run into the crypticism, which of course is its bounty, “what’s caesar’s” and “what’s God’s”? besides claims of divinity, which are easy to spot… for some.
“tree that spreads out over the land”
A) Here is where I wonder again if being trolled, because to mention this over national TV would garner front page stories on every print paper agross the country.
B) Your tree embodies rejection to the people you deprive of its embrace.
“Government that rejects the headship of God and refuses to submit to His moral authority is portrayed as a violent beast”
Above, I wondered if you would support the following:
“we have many more important things to keep us busy till, well re-election, before I’ll even contemplate either”:
(A) overturning Roe v. Wade.
(B) a marriage amendment.
I would ask, seeing as you don’t have these now and are not yet damned, can we consider putting them off at least, for the team?
“A hundred years ago, those who rejected the concept of moral absolutes were considered lunatics and separated from society”
Yes and you could leave them out there, and they would either die, pleas heard by none, or found refuge, but either way the expelling community faced no repurcusion but now I don’t see how you can do that unless… well, how about rainbow G’s? too merciful… red, they must have used red for some reason, so I say why re-invent the wheel? Please forgive me, you know you smiled.
“The question is: What is the source of morality?”
Ultimately, our parents. yep back to you mom and dad… I know its hard today. The left sure doesn’t help and would have you just assume that children learn how not to make mistakes, and thus also how to make them, soon after they start bringing their lunch to school.
“Does each individual get to determine what is moral and what is not?”
A) I can think of no single way to effect alteration of one’s moral system in any finite time. And would love to here ideas not involving institutional or shock therapy?
B) This channel has a generational time constant, just like education (which is why we need to start now) so have patience and don’t expect the changes you make to affect anyone you carry on conversations with today.
“If so, then we will have societal anarchy. What is the source?”
It is bad in SF, real bad, not always safe even, but anarchy is a stretch… and some of these people have absolutely no morals whatsoever. Is there any recent proven examples besides, Babel and S & G? This was back when people wore tunics.
The day “morality” translates into any comprehensive, majority accepted, political platform is the day I will eat my shorts. Sounds like Martyrdom. But I do not have a monopoly on intuition. And so far, I am more or less impressed by these documents you’ve produced and would now add, it may be about 100 years to late to sow it’s seeds.
So I like it when its enjoyable and we learn something from each other, thanks for the clarification on the scripture.
And I was just about to post…
49. Distraught:
“the great thing about Science is that it is the one field in which you can, at least in theory, really ever know if you are right”
Well, I did goof this, and not in my favor, but too many corrections already. Should go:
“the great thing about Science is that it is the one field in which you can really ever know if you are right”
– a Mr. Serdncik, circa prior the age of considering having a base-shoot at work.
And add to that shout thanks and forgive me to a Mr. Roug, Mr. Forest, Mr. Sweet MK.
And I will drop another quote I like, which I think explains a ton (or maybe just 1 thing… you’ll see). Relates all over, including to religion. I recall in one of Joseph Campbell’s videos he discusses church, and mass, and the idea of participation, and its importance (I’m recollectin) and he mentions the word “short-circuit”. And I realize its relation to this:
“The proof kills the idea” – A Mr. Weiss, circa same circa
Because you see, if I might mangle it, despite a pastor’s best efforts in reciting the lead and to the conclusion, does not force you to do, and can alleviate you from, the hard work of seeing the functional steps in progression of concepts leading from its initial foundings to it’s eventually summation; once you are able to see all these in one view, eventually the complete underlying concept encompassing the whole idea appears, if one exists (if its a real concept?), or, more if there are and in so many variations, although I stick with one. And yet as if by some magic, the process of proving, explaining, and dissecting from one step to the next renders the whole hidden from view… killing it. Eventually I wrote down one of the silliest things: The sum of all knowledge = 1. I think actually I had the empty set, but its just the whole ball as one…. a smooth round ball, having its last piece of knowledge slipped in place, commensurate with all others… the cracks disappear, and there remains only 1 thing, having no description other than that it is “Whole”; no information. But crack a piece of it and the structure and the variations in it appear (those others are cumbersome without the one, as they dangle, and require just too much to remember as any one ‘thing’. And I had a nice moment imagining if just for a second what a Unit could be.
But, I guess the take-home would be the best sermons are probably not the ones in which you always feel you understand everything it is getting at… cause you can’t. You need to solve these things on your own. And there is no way to do that and keep up while he goes on, for normal humans. Alas this is most all of teaching isn’t it… unless you think really hard and really fast, most is meant to digest for yourself later on, on your own… or ask for insight. And remember in general there are no exact words for these things I speak, the units, and really even the pieces… they have low fidelity in transmission through any known channel… they can only be seeded, left for you alone to water and grow. Our words and strokes are crude approximations to the real things… the carving of the puzzle, which dices them out, all carvings are different, and as so all sound. But you know somehow when you, and another, see the same thing in your head… you can’t pull them out and compare them, but you know because they have that look.
And now I feel it fine to say that in fact, I am not just speaking out to you, I have ‘spoken’ on a topic, primarily concerned with the efficiency of solar panels, abound with all sorts of concerns like CO2 levels, fabrication footprint, etc. Few discussed the current observed cooling and of the half I went through, did not see one discussing the trillion dollar bill on the table. And well maybe, you now understand why I don’t think the greenness of solar panels is a pertinent discussion given the $2 trillion dollar monster they are NOT displaying intellectual honesty nor any spine about, and shoving down Liberty’s throat as if they cannot see she already breathes heavily and the slope they have thrust her upon is steeped with treachery. My feelings were… well here is how it ended, and I don’t think any of it was enjoyed very much:
“And for those who did NOT get the new flash, cause you probably won’t hear it elsewhere:
[Solar panels are NOT green] —- they may only be greenER, than something else, technically.
They may have zero carbon footprint, if we neglect fabrication and waste — whose counting anyway. Yet, as if to deprive full redemption, the mere act of exposing a solar panel to the sun, results in global warming.”
Prior that, I was posing to them that the climate-crack, and most of the Green movement really, is just a new form of sacrifice. Having rejected the exceptionality of religion, they no longer of access within to the means to redemption it offers for so many. They find themselves, and yet do not know it, afloat and in search of a shore which to guide along. But of course there is only one boat and one safe shore, and as with unfounded sacrifices, if not all buy in then the circle can not be closed and redemption both accepted and given by all (for they have no one else to weigh in, and these things have glass jaws). Reminds me of another wacky formulation while hearing ideas of Rene Gerard, that is: A society that can not explain its problems with reason, first resorts to scapegoating, and then sacrifice… and then Jesus appeared, and showed a new way. I guess I’m hoping that Religion, unlike ritual sacrifice, does not need to have universal acceptance in order for one to drink full of its redemption.
Response to Distraught @69: Your posts are more and more like a wave on the ocean – tossed about incoherently by whatever wind happens to pass through your mind at the time. Rather than trying to track your whole course, let me respond to a few points.
1. Your interpretation of Christ’s comment to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” is totally wrong. The quote was in answer to a question on taxation and commended respect to the civil authority. It does not place the civil authority outside the realm of obedience to God. For more information, see Daniel and the Old Testament prophets, Romans, and Acts. Jesus and the apostles made it clear that obedience to God came first and that the state could not compel you to violate the law of God or the will of God. In Daniel, God humbles the nations who raise themselves up as the final authority on morality.
2. Scripture used two images of government. If you cannot keep the two distinct and separated in your mind then you have larger problems.
3. Your lack of depth in some of your responses is troubling. I asked your for the source of morality and you took it from the individual to the parents, yet, the same question would apply to the parents. What is the source of their morality? There has to be an originial source and that is what I am asking you to point out.
4. How does the tree embody rejection? The tree is a metaphor for good government so how does that imply rejection?
5. You totally missed the point about lunacy.
I am afraid that we have reached the end of our discussion. I have stated my points coherently and you have wandered all over the map tilting at strawmen and giants out of your own imagination. My suspicion all along is that you were a troll but not the average run of the mill “pick a fight troll.” Instead, your game is to throw as much worthless information as possible to stiffle debate and sow as much dissent as possible. That is the reason I have carefully chosen what topics to answer in response to each of your posts. I am not against vigorous debate but I refuse to be baited beyond where I intend to go. Largely I have ignored your mis-direction and slanderous insinuation but at this point obfuscation is your only response. So I must move on.
That’s cool. I was gonna say that I might remind you that God never asked to sign off on Caesar’s tax law, and that I agree to disagree, as well.
Thanks for the discussion.
Again, second guessing the correct reception of the urination example, for those who might not notice:
It is something that cavemen could, and mostly likely did, do, and requires no language or theory, just impulse and observation. Science is not so restrictive, just well-defined. Further I thought a height measurement boring, and a speed, difficult.
Response to Kipling:
Distraught is right. If we want to save our nation, we need to be practical. This does NOT mean putting “RINOs” in the general election – R candidates who self describe as pro choice, pro gay marraige will fail. But SoCo issues need to be backburnered so we can focus on preventing/reversing the massive grabs for our liberty and our wallets that the Dems are steamrolling. Backburner means “I’m pro life, but I recognize that the state of the law (i.e. federal protection for first trimester abortion and federal ban on “husband notification” requirement) is what it is. I would sign a bill that further restricts late term abortion except in emergency situations. If I have the opportunity to appoint a SCOTUS justice, I will appoint the person who I think is the best person for the job, best knowledge of and fidelity to the law, who has displayed the most consistent good judgment. I wouldn’t impose any litmus test that required the candidate to agree with every point of my political agenda.”
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I don’t think the government should get in the way of consenting relationships between adults, and I think that the legal rights that go along with marriage should be available to gay couples. Federal and state governments shouldn’t deny legal rights to gay couples, but I would leave it up to churches to decide if they wanted to join gay couples and call it “marriage”. My legislative priorities are protecting the freedom and security of the American people and reining in government spending so that we don’t burden our grandchildren with a debilitating national debt.” DONE. Getting bogged down in SoCo issues beyond this (at least for right now) makes the R brand look mean spirited and backward, and it hurts us in national elections.
Response to MoWo @73. Please point out to me the period of time when the conservative coalition did not consider social conservative positions to be on the back-burner. Since the failed nomination of Reagan in 1976, the powers that be in the Republican party have told social conservatives they would have to wait – that the timing was not right. When exactly will the timing be right?
The backburner position you stated @73 is not even a “let’s hold the line” position. You actually argue that conservatives should concede ground on social conservative issues in order to not appear mean-spirited. Why would you even think opposition to gay marriage is considered mean-spiritied? An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose it yet you would surrender the issue. Your fear is of the MSM who characterize the position as mean-spirited.
Fiscal restraint and personal responsibility is as much a character issue as it is a financial one. Yet, you hope to create fiscal restraint and personal responsibility without addressing the issue of character. Good luck with that one.
Your proposal is unacceptable to me. You might argue that I have no choice because I could not possibly vote for a Democrat and this would be true. However, you don’t just need my last minute sigh and vote – like I gave McCain. You need me to be fired up, to talk to be and get out the vote, to donate money above all. To get that from social conservatives you will have to do better than what you propose. Otherwise you can side with the RINOs and see how that works out for everyone – McCain redux.
speaking of end-games… Frankly, I’d just as well split the whole thing down the middle, even give them their pick of side. And not that they wouldn’t field an army, I’d even agree (insist) to provide continental defense. We would (A) put up a nice little fence and (B) their fallacies would be exposed. More and more would come as they gave more and more away. With any luck it could be over in a lifetime and we could do as we will. I for one might provide mercy. However, the parents would all have to wear large D’s and neither they, their children, and maybe their grandchildren could ever vote… or participate in the media; things like the Gibson interview and all that are disappointing to see, and make me wonder just who the perfect candidate could be.
To Kipling: I don’t mean to imply that you personally need to backburner your opposition to gay marraige and abortion. Just saying that national candidates, whether socially conservative or socially moderate would do well to not get into talking about it too deeply. Actually I think that McCain and Palin (who both have pro-life bonafides in their own personal lives, and both came out against gay marriage but only to the same extent as Obama) did a fine job of minimizing these issues. McCain was too liberal on immigration and fiscal policy, right? Not SoCo issues. And Palin was pretty gosh darn perfect. A little unpolished and tongue tied at times, but I found it refreshing to see someone who wasn’t a smooth pol, and I’m not counting her out no matter what the MSM or my liberal baby boomer mother says about her.
And I’m not saying you are mean spirited – you clearly are a very principled [guy/gal] who wants to do the right thing. I agree that character is key – but at least short term, not much you can do to instill character in other people’s kids so that they don’t have an unplanned pregnancy (or don’t get an abortion if they do), or to make other people’s kids not be gay (or not want to get married if they are). Plus, (televised) blabbing too much on anti-gay stuff beyond “I believe marraige is between a man and a woman” makes a pol seem like they don’t have their priorities straight (pardon the pun), and can be perceived as creepy and even a little, well, gay. No point in running the risk of getting Santorum-ed. Gay people are here, they’re queer, and most of us are used to it. This will get more true numbers-wise every year. I know a majority of people are against gay marriage, but the federal constitutional amendment thing is a non starter. (I don’t expect R candidates to come out against it, but am begging them not to get wrapped up in it to begin with.)
On the abortion thing, it’s awful, it makes me sick, I don’t deny that “abortion is murder” but (A) as a woman I wouldn’t vote to outlaw myself from getting a first trimester abortion, even though I can’t imagine a situation short of Rosemary’s Baby where I would consider it and (B) my Christian concern for other people’s kids is frankly overridden right now by my animal/survival priority of protecting my own kid’s future. It’s great, heck it’s preferable if an R candidate is a SoCo (I am a big Sarah booster), I just think they should focus on the economy, defense, education – priorities most of us can agree on and where there’s an opportunity for the Prez to make a big difference. An R Prez who eschews “litmus tests” during the campaign could still wind up appointing a strict constructionist who would overturn Roe. If done right, education reform and a better economy could lead to fewer abortions, and maybe, eventually, a majority of the population in many states who agree they don’t want elective abortion to be available anymore. Still unclear on how to prevent or reverse gayness though.
We’re on the same team, buddy. Just offering my humble perspective cuz I’ve had enough of these jokers and wanna win next time!
Response to Mowo @ 76: Social conservatism is one of the keys to building a winning Republican coaltion. Unless we have all three legs of the traditional conservative coalition – strong defense, fiscal responsibiity, and social conservative – in play, the RINOs will continue to dominate the party. I read all these posts, especially here at PJM, on how social conservatism is an albatros around the neck of the Republican party and I have to wonder if you people live in the real world. Here are some things to consider.
1. Social conservative positions enjoy the support of a majority of Americans. Over 51% now consider themselves prolife. Over 80% oppose gay marriage. How does abandoning these majorities help the Republican party. It is the Democrats who now have to hide their true positions behind such bogus rhetoric as “reducing the number of abortions” or “a path to citizenship.” Why do you think Mr. Obama never ran as the pro-abortion, pro-infantcide? Why do you think he came out for traditional marriage? If our opponents are afraid to challenge our social conservative positions, why in the world are we in a hurry to abandon them?
2. McCain and Palin did a fine job at minimizing these issues and they lost. Period. I watched all four of the debates and I can remember only a few times that the Republicans took a firm stand on social conservative principles and it cost them votes. I can only remember one question that even challenged Mr. Obama to address a social conservative position. Why were his supporters in the MSM afraid to raise the issue if their positions are so politically appealing?
3. Social conservatives principles are much more than abortion and gay marriage. Two of the issues you mentioned as a key to a Republican victory – immigration and education – are social conservative issues.
4. The left has this country on the brink of socialism because they have been waging a campaign designed to promote social liberalism since the 1960s. How can we expect to reverse the direction of the country and defeat the Dems unless we counter their social liberalism? Ideas do matter and socialism only flows from secularism and humanism.
5. Social conservative issue are our bridge into the African American and Hispanic communities. Hispanics are predominately Catholic and socially conservative. African Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. Why not build on this common ground? Instead you guys would have us scrap the common ground and then try to gain entry into their voting blocks by talking about balanced budgets.
We are on the same team but if you want to win you guys better wise up and stop worrying about what the MSM will say if you support traditional values.
Further thoughts: I do not feel the military, well, combat units at minimum, should be open to all until there exists wide agreement from generals down to NCO’s that it will not have a negative impact on troop performance, and thus, in some improbable event, possibly get someone injured or killed. These are just kids remember, and the military is a completely different beast than society.
In the interest of full disclosure, mowo is not without my influence, though she is definitely of her own opinions and directions. And, she did this unbeknownst to me, and the 2nd against my request, as she is now stubborn like me. She Was a bleeding heart liberal when I met her, bad as they come as she thought she knew it all, and within 3 months she was able to see through the Left’s whole facade (she just had to want to see… and I didn’t quite reveal my leanings all at once). And, believe me when I tell you, the deep value system is a work in progress, as we disagree still over things like discussing birth control with the daughters.
However, the R’s now likely have her vote forever… lest they get too, well, arrogant, like I think someone else here said. Notice that it’s the same mistake He makes. And, I wonder really just how many such so-co chanting has brought to the team from the other side… to not try is to rely on their failure.
Generally speaking, the fact of the matter is that we are likely screwed 6 ways to Sunday regardless (remember I am just an alarmist with low expectations who doesn’t know what he’s talking about)… as the possibility that government will ever shrink is, well… purely theoretical to this point in time. As far as 2012, right now it seems somewhat of a hedge bet. I have to hope things get bad enough that people will just, sigh, and defer to an R. For if they do not, it’s hard to see with the current field and opinion just how the majority would be drawn to any.
To my righteous brothers:
(A) Nationally speaking, in the 2010 and 2012 elections, social conservatism (which does not own immigration, education, or capitalism) will not be the primary, secondary, or even tertiary issue, unless it’s a negative.
(B) A CK nugget from above, “With only a few exceptions, the entire Republican Party is made up of RINOs.”
(C) He no longer thirsts for conquest. You, are to show the way. Not impose it. That would not please Him.
We need to rally around our future. It calls to us.
Great post. I remember how Rush Limbaugh, in 1994 when the republicans took over both houses, made much hay of the fact that Democrats were switching parties in “droves.” Looking back, I say these are the worst people you can possibly have in your party. If you are a politician with no principles whatsoever, and purely in the game for personal gain, what would you do when your team starts losing? Jump ship and get on a winning team, of course.
I learned this week that Al Franken is a true believer, to my surprise. He is supporting Tom Coburn’s horribly unpopular amendment to force the Senators to use any public option in the new health care plan. Why would Franken do that? The answer is that, he is a true believer in socialism willing to put his body where his principles are. I can respect that. The Arlen Spectors, Jim Jeffords, Ben “Nighthorse” Cambells, and John McCains of the world are another matter. They are just eating machines who will do whatever it takes to stay around and get to the next level. The democrat party would be worse for having more of these types, yet the republicans welcome them with open arms. Where is the logic in that.