The Transitional Voter: Winning the Actual ‘Bitter Clingers’
Either a poor turnout by the transitionals, or their rapid philosophical transformation leading to high turnout for Romney, could swing the presidency and Senate. The “Reagan Democrat” was a similar phenomenon; this time around “Ryan Democrat” would be more apt as he is the philosophical leader.
Team Romney can test this market best by soliciting advice from former transitionals regarding their “pre-op” days, if you will. [Ed. Note -- I will not.] I would advise we describe to them our process, because that process is more a common experience rather than the result of each individual’s unique set of circumstances. Ex-leftists can all relate to each other; it’s kinda like growing up:
Likely, you had been alienated from leftist fiscal behavior first, as U.S. financial policy was not as tied up with your identity as other political decisions, and no one — not even a socialist — is immune to feeling anger at tax dollar waste.
The revelation that government planning rather than individual property rights was destined to be wasteful did not occur to you yet. You just thought, for the first time in your life, that having a Republican in charge of spending might not be such an awful idea, as they at least seemed more concerned about waste, as long as there were never ever enough Republicans to overturn Roe v. Wade ever EVAAAR.
Next: you became concerned about State Department pronouncements. First you felt empathy for the safety of those oppressed in nations Leftists continually reach out to or apologize for. You noticed that Putin slaughters journalists, Castro jails and starves them and everyone else (and folks who flee through sharky waters on homemade rafts are people progs are supposed to hold summer folk festivals for, right?), and that Islam detests women.
Then, you eventually grew disgusted by Leftist foreign policy when noticing the plague of anti-Semitism infecting much of it. (If you are Jewish or close to the American Jewish community, you already knew this, but never much cared, as you were so convinced of Leftism’s moral superiority that you forgave the Left’s opinions on “Zionists.” Until you couldn’t take it anymore. That’s when your friends disappeared.)
Finally, it struck home: Leftist foreign policy initiated a concern for your own safety and that of your children, who were coming home with “get to know Islam” worksheets and hearing that “the wrong people were in charge” of the Soviet Union, and you saw that, “are you f***ing kidding me?”, students were having dinner with Ahmadinejad at Columbia.
To help promote what you are suggesting, pro-lifers need to stop calling those who believe the government has no business telling a woman what to do with her body, “baby killers”. Then maybe the many brain-washed liberals would start to listen to arguments where reality and reason supports conservative positions.
So what do you call the act of one human ending the life of another human?
How about “death cultists”? Or “satanic demonic evil hell-sprung devils”?
By the way, you do realize there are quite a few pro-choice mothers out there? Maybe they should be called “Ted Bundy’s sisters in sin.”
I like Arhooley recordings, and I like you!
I didn’t Arhooly Records was still around!
has no business telling a woman what to do with her body
A foetus is a separate and distinct human being. It is within but not part of a woman’s body.
A fetus IS a parasite – you want life? “breath of life” – then we are talking. Until then, let’s put aside the abortion thing and get rid of the UnNatural Born POTUS MObama.
Let’s make common cause first.
So you’re saying people on respirators aren’t living human beings?
No, presumably those on respirators have children, relatives, a long history of life works. Foetae have none of these things, what’s the point? I’m not a woman, I sense you are not either so… blah, blah, blah whatever
That was kind of entertaining…first “Phil_in_VA” says you have a right to kill your children because they’re not really alive, then says the people on respirators are “really alive” because they have children and relatives. As if babies don’t have “relatives”, and what about childless individuals on respirators–pull the plug because they’re worthless?
I’d laugh at Phil considering himself a serious thinker, but his “thinking” is too pathetic. You hear better logic from unmedicated paranoid schizophrenics.
Ah, the usual argument. “If you want more Republicans, stop disagreeing with my obvoiusly correct views”. Way to win people over!
How about reversing it? How about Republicans embrqace socialism, but just keep social Conservatism? After all, life is more important than money! Right? Right?
Hello?
One approach is to ask them if they are comfortable with the focus of all education, K-12 and higher ed, being to create new mental models and assumptions to design new ways of living that do not involve fossil fuels.
Ask if they have any idea what a world where the government is intent on unifying the natural sciences and the social sciences will be like. It involves ignoring objective realities and trying to use psychological practices and behavioral research to change human behavior. The neuroscience proponents at places like CASEL in Chicago even go so far as hoping for physiological changes in student’s brains incorporating the desired personality traits permanently.
Ask them if they ever read Orwell because it is coming to an Obama Second Term under initiatives like the Future Earth Alliance and metropolitanism/Building One America/Agenda 21 initiatives. The pressure being put on Big Business to push a triple bottom line approach that amounts to a political revolution from the inside out is alarming as well. That some of the same people are involved in all these areas in the name of systems thinking is fascinating. That they were profs teaching from a “justice perspective” during the Cold War is yet another reminder to look at labels by how they function, not what they call themselves.
You can be sure that the more totalitarian the aspirations, the better sounding the name will be.
Romney can win in a landslide if he runs a Conservative campaign and gives the voters a sharp contrast to Obama. He’ll lose in a landslide if the GOP runs another “Quiet! Don’t scare the moderates!!” campaign. What the strategists, who apparently specialize in losing, don’t understand is that if you don’t make your case aggressively then the media and Democrats will make if for you.
My impression is that the voters are eager for a choice, they want an ideological debate, they want contrasting viewpoints. I’ve heard Rush say many times that the GOP’s losing game plan stems from 1964 where Nelson Rockefeller lost after running as an actual Conservative. I think Rush is wrong. The GOP knows it can win by running a Conservative campaign but it doesn’t want to because it would then have to govern Conservatively. If the GOP says “if elected we’re going to do x,y and z” then the TEA Party will stand by with primary candidates to ensure that x,y and z get done.
“He’s a nice guy but” is a losing campaign but there’s still time for Romney to run a real Conservative campaign and win. However, I have the impression that the GOP wants to avoid offering anything that would look like a real difference with Obama. It appears that the GOP would rather hold minority power in an expanding government than hold majority power in a shrinking government.
I have the impression that the GOP wants to avoid offering anything that would look like a real difference with Obama.
You should start following the Romney/Ryan campaign. The differences between Romney and Obama are like the differences between white and black (no pun intended).
I suggest using the “night and day” analogy, rather than a “white and black” analogy. I don’t think you’re a racist or anything, but why make it easy for the Left to make those accusations with a comment like that?
Yes I know there’s a double-standard, and Liberals can (and do) make racist statements all the time with impunity, while we have to watch out for statements getting taken out of context or accused of using “code words” that aren’t racist whatsoever (anger, foodstamps, socialist, et all), but that’s the world we live in.
You’re dead right.
What Romney has said to this point isn’t really relevant since the moderates and otherwise undecided don’t pay attention until after Labor Day. Picking Ryan was an indication that Romney intends to run a “big ideas, Conservative ideology” campaign (and he’d win in a landslide if he does) but the rumblings from the GOP Establishment say it’s going to be a “Obama’s a nice guy but he’s incompetent” campaign, meaning Romney is not a nice guy but he’s competent to implement Obama’s agenda (and Romney would lose in a landslide). The people do not want Obama’s agenda but if Romney fails to propose a distinct alternative then the only choices are (A) nice guy and (B) not a nice guy, and the perceived nice guy wins every time.
The brain-trust in DC has been reluctant to attack Obama’s polices and his ideology either because they fear that such an attack will be perceived as a personal attack or because they agree with what Obama is doing. If Romney does not present a clear choice from those policies then it’s a tacit admission that he approves of them. In other words, he must attack Obama’s ideology and risk scaring the moderates, or he’ll lose. Everything Romney has said to date has been addressed to the party faithful. The moderates, undecideds, independents, and unhappy Democratic Party voters haven’t paid any attention to him. What he says from the convention forward will decide the election. He can go big or he’ll go home.
Rush is becoming “irrelevant”. In 2008 he abdicated getting involved in the primary and we got McCain. This year he alternated between bashing Romney and weakly supporting him after he was the nominee.
Apparently Romney doesn’t bow before the king and ask for his counsel and it really gets to Rush.
I attended the Republican Convention in KY this year and the Paulians were there in small but vocal numbers. The Republican establishment is the framework from which to work from. They have not been perfect, but they are organized. You can’t join a party for two years and then demand they do everything you want them to do. It is like turning a battleship around, slow but steady.
We don’t need another “In your heart you know he’s right” Goldwater thrashing.
Man, wouldn’t you love to be that “irrevelant”.
I liked all of the s tuff after the Rush-bashing.
Everybody who makes his living in Washington has a personal interest in expanding the federal government. That’s why so many sent up there as nominal conservatives end up going native. Not everyone does that, and some like Jim DeMint and Paul Ryan are able to see past their personal stake in expanding federal power, but perhaps the so-called Republican establishment has too many who have lost their way. That would help explain their positions on immigration and growing federal revenues that are so at odds with the rank and file.
“Everybody who makes his living in Washington has a personal interest in expanding the federal government.”
Not everyone. I live in DC, and I certainly don’t.
This is a man who says little about what he does, but he just does it!
Romney spent 2 1/2 years on a mission for his church $0;
5 years as Bishop of the LDS Church $0; (that includes counseling singles, marrieds with problems, people who lost jobs, people who need help of all kinds, camping and hiking with the youth – and they say he doesn’t understand people’s problems and poor people in particular!);
8 years as Stake President $0; (that includes the above but over 4 – 6 Bishops and their congregations);
Gov of Mass 4 years and took $0;
Saved the Olympics 4 years and took $0.
So I figure that adds up to 15 1/2 years donated. So if we added that up to his hourly salary – just wow!
Then you add 4 + 4 = 8 years in government and Olympics with no remuneration.
So let’s talk about the real difference in the years given freely by Gov Romney and what obama has donated!
Just in case you don’t know what a Stake President does you might want to glance at this article.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765598890/A-look-at-a-volunteer-Mormon-leader-Mitt-Romneys-years-as-a-stake-president.html
You like the anti-abortion meme because at heart you are still a statist. The anti-abortion argument seeks to legislatively enslave women, effectively forcing any pregnant female to become an incubator whether she likes it or not. Rather than a call for freedom, the anti-abortion position is a call for governmental control — enslavement. I’d been taught that the slavery issue was settled in the 1860′s. Apparently not. And to think it’s those who inherited Lincoln’s legacy who now *advocate* slavery!
Aside from the conceptual problem, this “taliban-lite” approach is doomed to failure because it’s unenforceable, laughably so. Pregnant women can simply hop aircraft and fly to civilised places to go have a pill or procedure. Tickets are cheaper than children. What are you going to do? Require pregnancy tests at airports?
Between the totalitarian attempts at behavioural controls and the simplicity by which these can be sidestepped, the only thing you can hope to attain is an environment of governmental contempt. “For a man to love his country, his country ought to be lovely” is still the prescription for happiness. What you advocate is the dystopic stuff of bad sci-fi films.
The average person doesn’t like the government telling them what they can do. Most people aren’t affecting by fiscal policy since they don’t own businesses or pay much in taxes, but they ARE affected by government bans and laws that make this or that illegal.
Abortion is considered a personal issue, and thus the average moderate is turned off by Conservatives because the perception is that they want to tell them what to do (or not do in this case). However, it’s actually Liberals who ban and mandate people’s personal lives (guns, salt, plastic bags, health insurance, et all). So Conservatives have a powerful pro-freedom argument, but whenever it is raised, Liberals use Abortion to counter it, since they can argue that Conservatives want to control people too.
The problem is that Liberals have been successful in getting people to think of unborn babies as simply “part of the woman’s body”. So any discussion about abortion is twisted into an attack against women’s personal freedom.
Before we can talk about changing abortion laws, we need to counter the argument that babies aren’t individual human beings, but “part of the woman’s body” and thus not entitled to life or freedom.
However, it’s actually Liberals who ban and mandate people’s personal lives (guns, salt, plastic bags, health insurance, et all). So Conservatives have a powerful pro-freedom argument, but whenever it is raised, Liberals use Abortion to counter it, since they can argue that Conservatives want to control people too.
I see here that you’re coming close to the correct answer, so I’ll help you. The leftists and the social “conservatives” are all government statists
arguing only over who gets to call the shots.
The leftists and the social conservatives are BOTH statists. The social conservatives belong in the leftist camp.
The reason the social “conservative” message doesn’t resonate with the people is that it’s merely a variation of nanny statism, and moreover, just like what was experienced during the dark ages for a thousand years. The only difference is that the left claims “science” as their excuse.
The GOP needs to expunge the ranks of the statists, period. At that point it will be the party of freedom.
An incubator against her will? That’s rich. In 98% of cases of today’s abortion cases, the woman chose of her own free will to engage in the risky behavior that got her pregnant. The simple and ugly truth that so many, including you apparently, do not consider is that there is no truly “safe” sex. No matter what you do to try to prevent it, there is always a risk of pregnancy the moment you engage in sex unless you have absolutely rendered yourself sterile or are engaging in lesbian sex. That’s the honest and unvarnished truth.
There is no slavery involved, just the woman’s own irresponsibility and unwillingness to own up to her own bad judgment. Perhaps we ought to change our attitudes about sex. Maybe it’s not something you simply do when your drunk and bored of a Friday night.
In 98% of cases of today’s abortion cases, the woman chose of her own free will to engage in the risky behavior that got her pregnant.
Taliban much, sparky?
Aside from the completely made up bogus statistics, BIG DEAL. How females get pregnant isn’t your concern. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe she can’t deal with certain contraceptives and didn’t know beforehand. It doesn’t matter. All you are doing here making is an absurdly judgemental and emotional “I’m going to legislate behaviour of slutty and irresponsible women” anti-freedom argument, which makes you a statist to the point it would make Marx blush. Good heavens. Yours is what passes for the far right “argument.” Pathetic.
Try actually being a conservative and not a poser. The two legs that conservatism stands on are Personal Freedom and Personal Responsibility. Once you realize that personal freedom alone is just selfish despicable selfishness they you will see what conservatives are talking about.
Come back when you grow up.
I’m not a conservative, Michael, I’m a garden variety moderate republican and typical of the *majority* of those who vote GOP. It is you who are the exception. Abortion is the law. You’re going to have to deal with it.
You really don’t have any concept of the thought that a fetus is an innocent human being, and that killing it may go to the most basic of laws, do you?
Your screaming bigotry against social conservatives is really sick. For a start, assuming you are not an anarchist or just a troll, why don’t you make an effort to figuring out the difference between laws protecting negative rights, i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and positive laws for your own good, like controlling your life in terms of smoking, diet, etc. Social conservatism does support laws that protect human dignity, negative laws that preclude harm to another’s life and liberty. The left likes government managing society in accord with their own view of what is for our own good. The first is not statist, it underlies any working society; the second leads to ever greater state control and inevitable tyranny. Until you get over your demand for a mindless absolute right to abortion, with no duty of responsibility for starting new human lives, and recognize that there is at least a possibility of another honest, differing opinion, you will continue to come across as just another selfish oaf.
Until you get over your demand for a mindless absolute right to abortion [snip]
Let’s get something straight here. There is no pro-abortion side. It has not existed since the 70′s. That side won 40 years ago. The only one around here making demands, sparky, is you. Abortion is the law.
And the law makes sense. It’s too trivial to circumvent outlawing. Assuming your wildest dreams came true and you whackjobs managed to change the law, women simply hop planes and go elsewhere when they need to. Flights are cheap. Nothing changes other than venue. So what do you win? Nothing. By outlawing it, would abortion rates go down? No. Would you even put a dent in the rates? No. What practical outcome would you achieve? None, other than the eternal gratitude of the airline industry. So then what, you totalitarian? Pregnancy tests before boarding flights? Let’s see what you’re made of. Tell me that’s what you would do. Let *everyone* hear it for themselves. Be proud enough to own it, Dave.
So you go ahead and continue your rosy dreams of enslaving of women in the name of your moral superiority, and meanwhile, chew on the fact that you’re too vapid to have thought through the consequences of practical application of technology. You’re blowing your time in the pursuit of absolutely squat. You were outwitted by an aircraft. You could probably be outwitted by a cabbage.
Don’t like me, Dave? GOOD. You can’t out-think me. Now, call me some more names and show everyone how powerless you are.
You people make me ill. Basically, if you want to commit murder then do it on your own dime. Not tax payer money.
Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar for profit company. Stop subsidizing it.
Do I want RoeVWade overturned? Yes – because it’s bad law. Throw it back to the states and let people vote with their feet. THAT is the American way. Same thing gay marriage. Let the people decide.
We not only don’t like government telling us what to do we also HATE them forcing us to pay for it.
Get it?
That’s fine, throwing the abortion issue back to the states. That’s a true federalist position.
But social conservatives and the GOP Platform don’t do that. They call for the passage of a Human Life Amendment, which would make even first-trimester abortions illegal even in the most liberal parts of the nation, such as Vermont and San Francisco.
Of course there are plenty of folks who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They tend to be libertarians, and something like a few percent of Americans are that way. In a close election, their votes can be significant. I know a couple of women who believe in low taxes, strong national defense, limited government–but they’re pro-choice on abortion. They don’t want a Human Life Amendment to ban abortion nationwide, any more than you want abortion to be legal nationwide.
Well, I don’t recall anything about a pro-life amendment, but let’s go there. Do you really think it could pass the amendment process? Because I don’t and that would pretty much put paid to the whole argument just as the equal rights amendment died in the early 80s.
I really think the only way to fix this country is to go back to the federalist vision of our government. I’m personally a conservative with a strong libertarian bend. Put whatever social issue up for the will of the people and then let them go to h3ll in their own way. If someone can’t live with it let them move to a state that reflects their values.
150 years ago the Fed’s, under Republican leadership, had to step in and tell the states “you cannot keep slaves, because it violates their natural right to liberty”. Now it is time for the same government to step in and tell the states “you cannot kill unborn children, because it violates their natural right to life”.
I’m a libertarian because of my belief in natural rights. Believing that the primary, or even only, role of government is to preserve those rights does not make me a statist.
Now it is time for the same government to step in and tell the states “you cannot kill unborn children, because it violates their natural right to life”.
The government via the supreme court made that decision 40 years ago. Sorry you didn’t like the call. Maybe moving to afghanistan would work better for you.
“Roe v Wade” violated the natural law which the country is founded on, and was therefor wrong, for the same reason slavery was wrong. Saying it was okay just because “the government said so” makes YOU the statist. Congratulations.
English much?
40 years back the supreme court of the USA decided specifically to stay out of personal lives, which is the opposite of statism.
Your arguments are as stupidly binary as the “pro-life” absolutist’s arguments. I don’t know about the 98% figure but a huge percentage of abortions are simply birth control; the number of black abortions would be called genocide if somebody the Left didn’t like were doing it.
A rational position is a first trimester abortion being legally sanctioned and whether or not it dooms one to Hell is between them, their significant others/family, and their god, and that isn’t a secular society’s problem. An abortion in the case of rape or incest is justifiable under the same constructs as a homocide in self-defense; it is still a homocide but protections of one’s self is an affirmative defense. If this offends someone’s god, the issue is between them and their god, not a question for a secular societ.
And are you going to enforce it the same way–this time, sending U.S. troops marching through Vermont, San Francisco, Boston, etc.?
The ending of slavery caused a civil war that was the bloodiest war America has ever fought.
No thank you. That’s way too high a price to pay for ending abortion.
Try minimizing it by persuasion, accepting that the feminist Left just won’t agree with you about that.
I don’t want a civil war over abortion. I honestly believe it could be settled with dumping roeVwade and letting the people in the states decide. That is the most honest and fair way to handle this.
As far as using persuasion to allow people to judge for themselves I’d have to say that doctors, themselves, and technology (especially ultrasounds) have been extremely persuasive. I know they were for me because, you see, I was that first generation that came of age post roeVwade with teachers (Berkeley grads) telling us it was just getting rid of some cells. These people actually taught us it was akin to getting rid of cancer – because cancer was just splitting cells and therefore qualified as life. Ultrasounds messed up their world.
Hitch actually helped to wake me up to a *lot* of stuff. I will be forever thankful for that.
Sadly, this is the first time I feel like staying home & not voting. That angers me.
Get the GOP out of the “Far Right” and I might feel safer voting for a Romney-Ryan ticket.
“Safer”, huh? So otherwise, you’re okay with the ruinous debt, socialism, and Big Government power-grab ala crumbling Europe? Really?
Yeah, that’s it. And great conclusion there.
A Woman, hold your nose and do it. For now, Roe v. Wade holds. If it’s overturned, that means the decision will go back to the individual states. Some states will outlaw abortion but most won’t. I don’t like the idea of living in a country where any jurisdiction can compel a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, but that’s self-governance.
Beyond that, the more fiscon/solibs vote Republican, the more chance we have to change the party.
Most likely I will and with my nose firmly plugged.
Romney is far right? That’s news to me. Were you paying attention to the primaries where everyone was calling Romney a RINO? Or when conservatives were running a ABR (Anyone But Romney) Campaign throughout the entire primary season?
You are either grossly misinformed by the state-controlled media, or you’re a plant.
Romney is far right? That’s news to me.
Reading comprehension ain’t your thing, is it, sparky? She’s saying the GOP has been hijacked by the ‘anti-abortion’ / ‘let’s call democrats commies’ far right.
Thank you.
She’s a plant – don’t water her.
“Far right” is a term devoid of meaning. “Left” and “Right” referred to the wings of the revolutionary French Assembly. Outside of the context of Napoleonic France, they are undefined.
Yes, you’re so right. It would be so much better for us to become a socialist/communist nation after a full-on fiscal collapse precipitated by a second term of Barack Obama than for you to possibly lose your so-called right to “abor”t another human life because you forgot that there is no such thing as safe sex and got pregnant at a time when it was inconvenient for you.
/sarc
Texas Lady, I know how you feel, but I’d ask, nay beg – you to ignore the apparent fact that most of the (no)abortion uber alles folks here are men, and do the right thing – vote for Romney.
There’s quite a lot “going on” in the mind of the liberal-in-transition. This article does capture a big chunk of it, but there are additional layers to be addressed. One of these is the concept of “sunk intellectual / emotional capital.”
An intelligent person who styles himself a liberal will believe that his alignment is founded on a rational assessment of the policy directions involved. Ironically, most of us acquire our political stances in ways that don’t even approximate rationality:
– We inherit them from our parents;
– Or we adopt them because persons we admire greatly hold them;
– Or we adopt them because they’re dominant in the social circles we prefer;
– Or we adopt them for the advantages they confer upon us in business and commerce.
But a beneficent politics must be founded on reason and the observable facts of existence. (“The facts of life are conservative.” — Margaret Thatcher) So crossing the fence from one side to another requires that the crosser find fault with his own prior assessment of his previous stance. That is, he must admit that he was mistaken, and possibly that he’d been badly mistaken for a long time.
There might not be any task more difficult for a man who fancies himself intelligent and well-informed. Alexander Rose once wrote that a man will more readily admit to murder than to ignorance, or to an error in judgment. He wasn’t exaggerating by much.
There might not be a way to breach this barrier with words. It might well be that only the good examples of others — i.e., conservative figures for the liberal emigre to observe, admire, and ultimately strive to emulate — can do the job. That constitutes an outreach technique of its own that’s within reach of anyone. However, it takes time to operate, and we’re beginning to run short of that particular resource.
Yes, yes, yes. This is what I found most difficult and disheartening when I made my move rightward. I had brought up my child in a porridge of pseudo beliefs, I still feel so guilty that it brings me to tears. Miraculously, she moved to NYC and became of all things CONSERVATIVE. She just watched and listened, especially to Bloomberg, and realized something wasn’t making sense. By then I had already converted, thank God.
. . . “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” translation: “Praise me, love me, accept me — I’m a responsible and open-minded person, too!”
fiscally conservative + socially liberal = libertarian
I myself have to describe myself this way because most people don’t know what a libertarian is.
The perception is that Liberals are for personal freedom but against market freedom, which conservatives are for market freedom but against personal freedom.
Libertarians are for freedom for both individuals and markets. There are pro-choice and pro-like libertarians depending on whether unborn babies are thought of as part of the woman’s body or individual human beings. That is the divide, and that’s what we should be focusing on.
socially liberal = public schools
Most of us here understand that spending beyond our means is unhealthy. Fewer of us here understand that the promises and approval of Roe V. Wade, the assurances of all children then being “wanted”, was based on a lie and led to a further erosion of personal responsibility, family and community – our real problem.
Simply getting our fiscal house in order will not save us, because you will never be able to get the fiscal house in order without a moral people to govern.
And there is nothing moral about abortion. Nothing.
“And there is nothing moral about abortion. Nothing.”
TEX,
100% in agreement with you on this.
A truer statement was never uttered.
Simply getting our fiscal house in order will not save us, because you will never be able to get the fiscal house in order without a moral people to govern.
And one supposes that this utterly idiotic tripe is uttered by someone who fancies himself qualified to judge what is and is not “moral.”
You’re the very picture of why 85% of the country sees the far right as sanctimonious, moralizing, knuckle dragging idiots. And 85% of the country, in this case, is completely correct.
Go take your silliness to the democrats.
And hedonists like you will never be able to understand why we’re in trouble. Frankly, sanctimonious imbeciles like you are worthless to the cause. I don’t think it takes a theology degree to see scraping, scalding, and tearing a fetus from the womb is immoral.
By the way, you can kiss my ass…and if I get the opportunity to meet you, you will be.
So in a nut shell, low taxes and sex without consequence.
“Sex without consequences” Aha. Yeah, that’s it, what rally underlies much of the passion with some folks on you side. You just can’t stand anyone getting laid if they are not married and trying to procreate.
Ok, take two.
Try actually being a conservative and not a poser. The two legs that conservatism stands on are Personal Freedom and Personal Responsibility. Once you realize that personal freedom alone is just despicable liberal selfishness then you will see what conservatives are talking about.
Come back when you grow up.
“Sex without consequence,” eh? So sexually active women should be . . . punished, I guess. With a baby. That’s what I’m getting here.
I’m simply saying let’s call it what it is. When you cut through the euphemisms, it seems to change the argument.
And it’s not only about women.
You must know different ones than I do. For example, we have a local radio talk show host who describes himself that way. I call them “liberaltarians.” They champion every Big Government, Nanny State program out there and are so very correctly PC, but at the same time, they claim to be against the deficit and debt and fiscally conservative. I have to laugh at how painfully inconsistent that position is. I have to wonder how his head doens’t just explode with it. How do you maintain a Big Government Nanny State while maintaining a fascally responsible government?
Then, there are the liberaltarians who simply want to legalize every kind of vice known to man while still maintaining the nanny state. Their position is easy to figure out – I want to have my cake and be subsidized for eating it.
@Morgue
Can’t quite buy that =. Isn’t government support of the poor with welfare, environmentalism, etc. all part of “socially liberal”?
In fact, it seems to me that fiscally conservative must militate against socially liberal. All the governmental involvement in social causes is necessarily hard on fiscal reason.
“Sooner or later, Romney and Ryan should expound upon “I believe life starts at conception”. The Democrats want women to believe Roe vs Wade is going to be repealed. That’s not going to happen anytime soon, certainly not before the election.
Romney has said that he will stop funding Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars, and he will likely appoint conservative justices (especially if the house and senate are controlled by the GOP), and abortion could realistically be threatened, so the fear by the Left is justified.
Fergawdsakes, do you have any concept of the mechanics of what has to happen to get a SCOTUS decision overturned?
And let’s indulge your whackadoodle fantasy and say that Roe is overturned 50 years from now. So what? Abortion will still be completely legal in all the blue states.
Complete non-issue.
The Democrats also want women to believe that the repeal of Roe means that abortion will instantly be illegal in all cases, nationwide, when it actually means that abortion laws will be up to the individual states.
The facts:
Those who voted for Obama in’08 voted for a guy who’s an unborn and near birth baby butcherer. A multi-leveled liar. A hater of free market capitalism. A despiser of the American military. A waster of tax money. A friend to America’s enemies. An enemy to America’s friends.
35% of Obama’s ’08 voters feel the same way. And are voting for him in the upcoming election on November 6.
15% of Obama ’08 voters don’t realize what a monster he is and will be voting for him.
50% of the nation recognizes Obama for the miscreant he is whether they voted for him in ’08 or not. I’m afraid it’s not enough.
I am afraid the America I grew up in is gone because the American people in large part have changed for the worse. I feel the American traitor is growing in strength and numbers. And that Obama is the modern day Hitler. I feel a deep sense of alienation, and a deep sense of sadness for the America that once was the greatest country in the world. Now our borders are porous like an open pipe filling a lake with sewage. Obama isn’t running out of lies. Meanwhile, Romney won’t attack; Romney won’t target Obama for the filth he’s brought to America.
I’ll be voting for Mitt McCain; both politically clueless and out of touch with what needs to be done to win this election. Armed with political hacks guiding their every dumb as a doornail move.
The cherry on the Obama traitor Sundae, of course, is the main stream media. Now sycophants to the evil that embodies Obama; that has polluted the American spirit.
hear hear
Well said.
is blue state speak for libertarian. They’re more-or-less libertarians, but don’t want to admit it in polite company.
There are some subtle differences; i.e. most of them are still for gun control.
Dem here. ED Leader. ACLU socialist red diaper baby. Father got NYS to fund abortion – Equal Protection Clause. Commie camp.
Voting Romney!
If there ain’t no America left, abortion and the like is irrelevant. I want America to be able to handle a three theater war.
So, taking a lefty to smell the stink of a totalitarian antiAmerican, Constitution murdering douchebag shit , we VOTE ROMNEY – NOBAMA!!!!
and here’s the kicker: plenty more like me doing the same thing – the worm turns…….talk about losing the base!
I’d suggest the way to accomplish this transition is take this discussion back to the principles espoused at our Founding as a nation. By recounting the basis for the Revolution and passage of the Constitution we can join the intellectual battle without malice. I strongly commend Hillsdale College for teaching about the Constitution, and highly recommend Dr. Arnn’s book, “The Founders Key” to everyone!
As to abortion, I’m one who doesn’t see independent life beginning at conception, so I don’t see it as murder, at least until the baby is viable. I do believe that the “pursuit of happiness” does includes privacy, ownership, and control over ones own body, but that the “right to life” is predominant. I DO think the federal government should butt out, and leave the issue to the States.
Romney must run as a unabashed conservative, unapologetically on fiscal and security matters, but with non-threatening modulation on social ones. We must reform Medicare & Social Security in order to avoid bankruptcy. But we must recognize that in order to revert to Constitutional governance, these programs must be phased out, or the Constitution amended to somehow allow the force of confiscation from one individual to subsidize another without violating Natural Rights. It’ll be hard to square that circle!
This is one reason why we are not done by a long shot!
We Don’t Need No Stinking Warrant: The Disturbing, Unchecked Rise of the Administrative Subpoena BY DAVID KRAVETS 08.28.12 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/administrative-subpoenas/
If conservs were serious about defending their principles, Mitt would not have won the primary- Most R’s kept telling me to get indie votes we have to pick the closest to center candidate- and now they have and guess what? to D’s Mitt is an extremist right winger racist bad guy ANYWAY. You can see how the demonization of Mitt is working every day- the media lies about his trip, a silly joke makes him a birther, anti abortion makes him a woman hater etc.
Newt was the only guy who had the balls to speak truth about this and still does
trying to appease, to cajole, to convince people who hold these lies as truth is a lost cause
former Democrat, did the homework, saw the light… I cannot see any lights on in the “independents” I have spoken to- they are swayed by the Obama rhetoric (BS)
In 1976 I voted for Jimmuh Cahtuh as the “DC Oustider Gonna Drain that Swamp” candidate. By the time 1980 rolled around I had bought my first house (on land contract tied to CD’s, one year hit 14%) had gotten married, had a kid on the way, and been promoted to my first responsible position of any kind. I’d also watched Carter’s performance in the Iran hostage crisis. There was zero vacillation, no hesitation, and not one shred of regret on my part. I was a Reagan conservative immediately and for life.
Abortion is the law of the land: perhaps wrong but still the law.
Given that we are responsible for what we do personally at all times in all ways. What are the anti’s doing now. Finding homes for the ones that slip the net? Actively working to give women an alternative? Adopting the unwanted? These are all costs they want others to pay, for the most part.
If you like abortions, well chip in and handout coupons. Develop programs to spare funding from the conscious stricken. You prate about compassion? Well, show some to those who believe differently, and stop demonizing them.
I know the pro’s and feel that that world would be better if they exercised their favored right more freely. We can’t stop them so let them run: maybe they will die out in time.
What you say is not true. People who are against abortion due to faith (l’ll just use them as an example) are the most giving and charitable people in the country. But now because of “liberal” compassion so many of the tried and true ways of helping have been destroyed. Gone are orphanages and unwed mothers homes. Now we have government handouts for single mothers – who still can’t provide for theirselves and their child – and foster care is the new orphanage. Nice idea that has turned out to be an utter trainwreck.
Whatever problems the old ways had they shouldn’t have bern junked altogether. For awhile couples – mostly white couples – were adopting the black children that had been abandoned – until black special intrest groups decided black children could only be adopted by black parents.
Now couples have to go overseas to “buy” children. Chuches help on individual cases but they can no longer spend their energy and resources at the local orphanage – helping dozens of children – because they no longer exist.
Orphanages and nusing homes are where churches used to spend their energy. Liberls stole the children.
Do you know anyone who grew-up happy in an orphanage? Do we want to go back to the days of back-alley abortions? We can debate pro-life/pro-choice forever;bit Roe vs Wade is not going to get repealed.
so…dead is better than an orphanage?????? not even in a Dickens novel!
John Adams-The Declaration of Independence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWXmsUzopqM&feature=relmfu
The key is “using reason to win the country”. Conservatives could win if the religious ones would only recognize that using religious arguments to defend conservatism only hurts the cause. Conservatism is reasonable. Both Leftism and religion are based on utopian fantasies. Its is better to fight fantasy with reason than with another (just as irrational) fantasy.
WAT?
You are assumptions are incorrect about most of us. We don’t like the Dem candidate nor the Rep candidate. The fact that both parties have used Election Fraud to get candidates into high gov positions since Bush 1 does not thrill us. Look it up for yourself.
Then that they all go against our legitimate government as if it does not exist trying to get the American people to opt out of individual rights and submit to UN rule, assuming that we are alright with:
Give up our right to own property (UN Agenda 21 – thankfully states are banning, with Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 477 legislation, known as the “Due Process for Property Rights” Act being the first).
Give up property we already own for the “community good” – yeah, BOTH Obama and Romney support this illegal action.
Are alright with being moved to “human habitats” so that the UN has easier access to America’s natural resources that they are STEALING from us. (Remember states are fighting this – so yes it IS real).
Give up our oceans to the UN.
Give up our rights to the UN.
Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey gave “authority” over the USA to the UN – not that they ever LEGALLY had the power to do that and is TREASON against the USA (which Romney supports).
Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey gave “authority” over our US Military to the UN – once again they have NEVER had the power to do that and is TREASON against the USA (which Romney supports).
There are more then two choices in spite of what “mainstream news (an *illegal cartel – which makes the head of the FCC and about 4 layers directly under also committing treason) wants most Americans to believe.
*Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC in 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”
Just because Both Bush’s and both Clinton’s got away so far with committing treason does NOT mean that they cannot be arrested today or tomorrow and held for prosecution. Nor does it mean that Obama and those of his administration; those in the senate, the congress, plus a few of the judicial can also be prosecuted for their crimes against the USA and the American people – and should be.
If what they are doing behind the scenes is so good for America, then why the lies, the cover-ups, the distortions, the ELECTION FRAUDS where not only were votes stolen, and misapplied, but people were viciously injured also?
So tell me, why do YOU think we want those treasonous thugs in OUR government?
“fiscally conservative but socially liberal”
Isn’t that the definition of libertarian?
Say there, stuck in the queus ‘waiting for moderation’ for hours now. Qué pasa?