-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The general point that Dick Morris is making in this column — that congressional districts once represented by liberal Republicans now tend to be represented by liberal Democrats and the districts once represented by conservative Democrats now tend to be held by conservative Republicans — is sound. But this bit of history about liberal Republican senators isn’t quite right:
When liberal Republicans failed to rally to Bill Clinton’s 1993-1994 agenda - including his failed healthcare proposal - they laid the basis for their total demise in subsequent years. Sens. Jeffords, Chaffee, D’Amato, Packwood, Hatfield and Specter (as a Republican) are gone. Sens. Snowe and Collins are all that remain of the once-dominant Rockefeller wing of the GOP. They have been replaced by real Democrats.
All of those Republicans are indeed gone, but the idea that they paid a steep political price for opposing the 1993-94 Clinton agenda (to the extent that they opposed it) is wrong. Jim Jeffords — who actually supported the Clinton health care plan but opposed many other administration initiatives — was reelected in 1994. John Chafee was reelected in 1994 and replaced by his even more liberal Republican son Lincoln in 2000. Arlen Specter was (fairly easily) reelected in 1998. Mark Hatfield opted to retire after five terms in 1996 but was replaced by a somewhat more conservative Republican, Gordon Smith. Bob Packwood’s departure was due to his sexual harrassment scandal, not his voting record.
The only senator on that list to lose a reelection bid during Clinton’s presidency is Alfonse D’Amato of New York, who went down in 1998. But D’Amato was the least liberal member of that group. In fact, he ran in all of his elections with Conservative and Right-to-Life Party support and set himself on a path to win his Senate seat in 1980 by beating liberal Republican Jacob Javits in the primary.
Morris is on more solid ground when he points out that supposedly “center-right” Democrats will pay a political price for supporting the Obama administration, like their predecessors did during the Clinton administration. In 2006 and 2008, national Democrats recruited candidates in purple and red districts who ran on fairly conservative platforms. But few of them have compiled recognizably conservative voting records.
Bob| 1.7.10 @ 12:20PM
Antle, I'm humored by the expression "liberal Republican". What is that? If someone is a very strong fiscal conservative but is libertarian on social issues, is that a "liberal Republican"? The tendency we have on the uneducated right is to use the sound bite "liberal Republican" to define anyone who is not a social conservative. That tendency is hurting the Republican party. You can't be a pro-choice Republican who is strong on fiscal conservatism and ever be elected through a Republican primary.
W. James Antle III | 1.7.10 @ 12:36PM
Bob, I've named names. Look up their records: virtually all of the above, except D'Amato, were generally to the left of the party as a whole on issues across the board. None was a "strong fiscal conservative" who happened to be pro-choice. And yet Republicans were nominating them as recently as the 1990s and, in Jeffords' case, into 2000.
Bob| 1.7.10 @ 12:57PM
2000 was a decade ago and now all of them are gone. My statement stands... there is no more traditional Republican party -- it is now the Social Conservative party. Pro-choice people need not apply as that is the litmus test. That is why the party is shrinking. Can you really disagree with that? Besides, most of us who are strong fiscal conservatives but not part of the religious right consider ourselves to be Independents/Libertarians. That said, because I still want to vote in primaries, I am a registered Republican.
SteveP| 1.7.10 @ 1:54PM
Your statement that the GOP is shrinking due to its pro life stance is absurd.
Many ex Republicans (myself included) left the party over its fiscal turn to the left. So-called "compassionate conservatism" and "big government conservatism" did more to offend and drive away members than anything else.
I'm not part of the religious right but I am uncompromisingly pro life. I'm glad that people who think there is a right to murder babies because they're inconvenient aren't welcome in the party. If that ever changes a fiscal right turn won't draw me back into the party.
Warrior | 1.7.10 @ 1:58PM
Well said. The Republican party of George W. Bush is nothing but an extension of the Democrat party of the 60's and 70's. The more the GOP pushes to the left (and this has nothing to do with abortion) or socialist lite, the more it drives away its base.
W. James Antle III | 1.7.10 @ 1:58PM
Your statement doesn't stand because not even you are still standing by it. You asked who was a "liberal Republican." I named them. None of them were "strong fiscal conservatives" who are pro-choice. You then moved on to talking about the pro-choice litmus test in the abstract. So I ask you: Who are you talking about? I've named names. The only "strong fiscal conservatives" I can think of who are particularly liberal on social issues are Rudy Giuliani and Bill Weld during his first term as governor of Massachusetts.
Bob| 1.7.10 @ 2:07PM
Antle, you make a chicken/egg argument, i.e., it is circular. There aren't any strong fiscal conservatives who are pro-life and political savvy who would run today -- and you know it. Therefore, by their being no examples, you've proven my point.
W. James Antle III | 1.7.10 @ 2:20PM
No, what I have proven is that the people who are called liberal Republicans really are liberal Republicans, not pro-choice fiscal conservatives.
martin j smith| 1.7.10 @ 3:38PM
But, Conservatives are growing --why ? Because people want to vote for individuals who believe in something. The Republican Party --what does it stand for ? The issue that the social agenda is a problem is BS. I think the economy and national security are causing enough concern that folks who voted for Obama and even for the moderate MacCaine are realizing that this nation is in trouble and that the economy and our national security are in grave danger . They are afraid of the actions of the Obama administration and congress in these areas. They do not want the Hope and Change that the Democrat Party is running on.
S.L. Toddard| 1.7.10 @ 5:04PM
"My statement stands... there is no more traditional Republican party -- it is now the Social Conservative party. Pro-choice people need not apply as that is the litmus test. That is why the party is shrinking."
The party is shrinking because it doubled the deficit, vastly expanded government, launched and failed to win two disastrous wars and nearly destroyed the economy of the entire planet.
Pingback| 1.7.10 @ 1:00PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Of Liberal Republicans links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 1.7.10 @ 1:45PM
I have to agree with Bob here. One of the problems confronting the GOP is its tendency to push independents who are fiscal and national defense conservatives away with its insistence on social conservatism purity. While I believe pro-life is an important stance, I believe we would do better to deemphasize abortion position as our litmus test and try to work with candidates who will bring fiscal sanity and strong national defense back to the forefront in Washington despite their views on abortion. Let's face it - abortion is no longer an issue over which the legislative branch has control; the Supreme Court seized that over 35 years ago. Perhaps we would do better if we simply did not push away those voters who see a relatively politically meaningless issue like abortion as a roadblock to their support of the GOP. (Please note that this does not mean that I see abortion as an unimportant social issue. It simply means that there is little that Congress can do about it short of garnering enough support for a constitutional amendment - ha! Why alienate people over issues that you can't address advantageously? Abortion is a fight that must be won at the hearts and minds level, just like racism.)
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 1:58PM
Of course and as usual, the opposite of what "Bob" says is true.
The reason the Republicans are losing is because they aren't conservative enough. Bob the anti-God fanatic has a problem with people of faith and he can't stand the fact that liberals aren't in more demand.
The fact is that we need to return to being Reagan conservatives, strongly standing on our good moral issues. That's how he won, and that is how we will win again.
Out with the RINOS and in with real conservatives. And there are many running now in the 2010 elections that we need to make sure WE ALL get behind, back with our $ and then VOTE for them!
Onward true conservatives!
Bob| 1.7.10 @ 2:08PM
Thanks, again, Margie for proving my point that this is not a party of fiscal conservatism, it is an adjunct party to white Christianity.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 2:13PM
Thanks for proving mine, Bob.
You said you voted for Obama, so wouldn't you be a hypocrite? You said you couldn't vote for McCain because of Sarah Palin.
You're just all over the place, Bob. You need to get your act together.
True colors, baby, true colors.
Bob| 1.7.10 @ 2:17PM
I'm not a hypocrite at all Margie. Competence and knowledge come before any political preference. Palin is just not qualified to hold that office. And not being a social conservative, there was nothing about Palin that could have made me vote for her.
Furthermore, if I had voted for Palin, I would be sending a message to my party that I approved of their choice -- and I don't.
True colors? Absolutely. So Margie, did you volunteer to fight for our country like I did? No? Too bad you're not a patriot.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 2:18PM
Lame, lame & more lame.
AJsDaddie| 1.7.10 @ 2:36PM
Bob, I wouldn't necessarily call it an adjunct to white Christianity. I would say that moral values are as important as fiscal conservatism, although I also agree that hard and fast litmus tests should be few and exceptional.
I do think there are some hard lines. Take abortion. On the one hand, being pro-life doesn't necessarily make you anti-abortion in 100% of the cases. Some people of good moral stature can envision situations where abortion can be tolerated, although all attempts to avoid it would be made. The classic examples of rape and incest qualify here, and I wouldn't consider someone who held such a position to be a poor choice for representing me politically.
On the other hand, there are indeed some litmus tests. Partial birth abortion is murder, plain and simple, and anybody who practices it should be tried in a court of law for first degree murder. This isn't negotiable, there's no "relative" position on this. Feel free to disagree, but you'd be in an incredibly small minority.
So what happens if we don't push such a hard line? We end up with an HHS Secretary who took donations from a murderer. I find it hard to conceive of this person as acting in the best interests of our most vulnerable citizens, and yet that's what we get from the morally relative administration we currently have.
Moral values matter. Elections have consequences.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 2:51PM
Abortion is is the killing of a life created by God and is wrong no matter how it happened. It isn't the unborn child's fault how it was conceived, and no one has the "right" to kill it.
Trying to justify abortion in the cases of rape or incest in order to be politically correct enough to run for office or be an acceptable candidate is despicable.
AJsDaddie| 1.7.10 @ 3:22PM
And that's your opinion, Margie. At the same time, there are many people who believe that the when the sperm and egg first meet, they are not yet a human being. Others, like you, believe that a human being is created at conception. Others go even further and insist that even a single wasted sperm is a sin against God. There is a spectrum of belief, and some of it is purely philosophical in nature. Surely you don't think that all people who believe differently than you are evil?
On a far more practical plane, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that killing a baby that can survive on its own outside the womb is anything short of murder. But that's my belief, and it's one of a very few that I hold to be inviolable.
If I believed that all people who disagree with every one of my moral tenets is evil, then I would have a relatively small pool of people from whom to select representatives. In fact, at that point I would suggest that I run myself.
On the other hand, if you can imagine that there are some issues that reasonable people can disagree on, then you have a larger pool of consensus.
I understand that my position on partial birth is every bit as litmus test-y as your "no abortion whatsoever" position. So in the end, if your litmus test is simply "no abortion under any circumstance" then that's your right.
I'd leave you with a simple question: is terminating an ectopic pregnancy still murder to you? Weigh the question carefully. Either answer has powerful philosophical consequences.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 4:01PM
What I said was what I said. Specifically and truthfully. According to God's law~not mine.
Sorry if you don't like it.
I'm not the one you take issue with.
AJsDaddie| 1.7.10 @ 4:06PM
I'm not faulting your viewpoint, Margie, just pointing out alternate viewpoints and asking a question.
Please though, would you answer that question? Is terminating an ectopic pregnancy murder or not? I'd like to know what you think God's law is on this issue.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 4:21PM
What do I think God's law is? "Thou shalt not kill." Ex. 20:13.
AJsDaddie| 1.7.10 @ 4:33PM
So even though the baby cannot come to term and the mother will die, you believe it is God's will that the pregnancy continue and both die?
John - TMF| 1.7.10 @ 4:50PM
An ectopic "pregnancy" isn't a pregnancy. It is a physical error and results in a miscarriage. The fact that an operation must be performed to removed the failed embryo to prevent the woman from dying of infection, and blood loss is not at issue.
And yes this came from the Catholic Church and my sister suffered an ectopic pregnancy and miscarried - which almost killed her - in 1989.
Other than the miracle of modern medical science allowing for the saving of the mother's life; an ectopic is one of those sad tragedies that occur when any woman has a miscarriage.
My sister had three very healthy lovely children after losing a fallopian tube to that ordeal. The fact that her life was spared due to that medical care is a miracle all of its own.
Margie... it is not "Thou Shalt not kill." God allows for many instances of justifiable homicide in defense of self, family, and tribe (nation). The Commandment is properly translated "Thou Shalt not Murder."
Life is precious. It is the actual true measure of a society's wealth. Without our children all the gold in the world is worthless metal. All the money on the planet is just paper, and all of the goods we gather around ourselves go to nothing.
Regards,
The Mighty Fahvaag
AJsDaddie| 1.7.10 @ 5:11PM
"An ectopic "pregnancy" isn't a pregnancy. It is a physical error and results in a miscarriage. The fact that an operation must be performed to removed the failed embryo to prevent the woman from dying of infection, and blood loss is not at issue. "
The embryo is often still alive when it is removed. So it is theologically acceptable to kill an embryo when it cannot survive and the pregnancy would kill the mother.
"Without our children all the gold in the world is worthless metal."
Yet, if the mother is a child of 11 who has been impregnated by a pedophile, you insist that the baby be brought to term, despite the almost inevitable medical complications (not to mention the additional devastating effects on the child)?
I'm not trying to justify, just trying to point out that, as Warrior noted, absolute positions can lead to difficult choices. You may insist that the 11 year old is going to survive and with enough love and care, all will be well. I gently suggest that the chances of that are exceedingly slim, and then leave it at that.
The larger question is whether an absolute position against abortion in all cases is a litmus test for the conservative movement and/or for the Repbulican party. I don't think so, but I could be mistaken.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 5:17PM
John,
OK then Thou shalt not murder. People who want to justify abortion will try every trick in the book to do so. They will even try to use others answers to stomp away.. whatever..
It's not my call. It's between them & God. The subject of ectoptic pregnancy.. I was asked what God's law is~ I answered the only way I know how~ "Thou shalt not murder."
God reports, you decide.
AJsDaddie| 1.7.10 @ 6:26PM
I'm not tying to justify anything. Like most people, I wish there were never another abortion. If you think that it is God's will for an underage girl to carry a molester's child regardless of the damage to her, then you and I can leave it at that.
I believe there are moral certainties, but I also believe that God allows us - and even requires us - to be able to recognize that situations exist in which *all* answers are wrong. How does this differ from moral relativism? In that even when abortion is the lesser of two evils, it is still evil.
If I'm not clear, I apologize. It's as clear as crystal to me.
Warrior | 1.7.10 @ 4:45PM
Speaking with religious scholars, the interpretation really is thou shalt not murder. There is a tremendous difference between a kill and a murder. By your definition, a soldier is committing a sin, or the police officer who is attempting to protect life. You have to see that absolutes are never a great position to attempt to defend.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 5:24PM
Is it not murder to take the life of an unborn child? That was the subject we were discussing.
I understand the difference..
Killing in the defense of your Nation is not murder.. yes I get it.
However, God certainly still does speak in an absolute when He says "Thou shalt not murder" when murder is the taking of an innocent life. And I happen to agree with Him!
AJsDaddie| 1.8.10 @ 10:26AM
And just to be absolutely clear here, it is your contention that if an 11 year old girl is raped and impregnated by a pedophile that it is God's will that she carry the baby to term, even if it will likely cause her irreparable physical damage and additional psychological scarring.
If you say "Yes" then you are perfectly justified to strictly assert that no abortion is ever acceptable to you. As I noted earlier, my God requires a somewhat finer grained approach to the question: in my world view the abortion is still evil and horrible, but it may be the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being the further destruction of the 11 year old's life.
Once you answer this question we can clearly delineate our differences.
Margie| 1.8.10 @ 12:12PM
There is only one God. He's the one in the Bible We both know His commandment.. each one has to make their own decisions.
I believe that you know that, too.
AJsDaddie| 1.8.10 @ 1:10PM
Will you answer the question? It's a simple yes or no, Margie: in your understanding, does God insist the 11 year old bring the baby to term?
Yes or no, please.
Bob| 1.7.10 @ 2:14PM
And also, Margie, I am not "anti-God" -- my children are all practicing Catholics (although I am an ex-Jew and atheist) and I'm the one that took them to CCD because I thought a grounding in religion was important -- it didn't make any difference to me which one it was. So let's get this correct.... I believe political parties should concentrate only on secular issues -- mixing fiscal/governmental issues with religion is a dangerous precedent. Just look at Islamic nations and you'll see what I mean. Our country was based on religious freedom and to have a party so closely tied to one particular religion is dangerous.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 2:26PM
Twisted.
Atheism happens to be anti-God.
You are anti-Christian which is anti-God.
You lie when you say the party is tied to a religion.
Conservatives, that is Reagan conservatives are for the same principles that founded this great country. That is the base of the Republican party and that is what we want it returned to. You, however do not want that.. you wouldn't vote for any Republican..except Ron Paul or his ilk. McCain wasn't even "moderate" enough for you.
Everyone is welcome in the Republican party.. but you aren't allowed to take it down to your level of atheistic values. We've fallen enough as it is.
martin j smith| 1.7.10 @ 3:41PM
Margie, this guy Bob is a troll, a seminar poster... Do not spend too much time trying to "reason" with him. He has his agenda, and no matter what you say its ping pong all the way.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 4:05PM
martin.
you're such a nice guy to tell me that. Don't worry though.. I do know he's got his agenda. I just feel the need to confront his twisting of the facts so that others may have a comparison. I hope I do a halfway decent job. John - TMF did an outstanding job. These people need to be confronted so that others can see the truth. Just for the sake of the truth. Besides it's excellent for sharpening the sword. (figuratively speaking that is).
John - TMF| 1.7.10 @ 2:14PM
The trope: Social Liberals who are fiscal Conservatives are leaving the GOP and voting for Democrats because of Social Conservatism.
The truth: Social Liberals are nearly universally fiscal liberals who use occasional votes for increased taxation as evidence of fiscal responsibility.
I know of no, zero, zippy, Nada... Social Liberals who would support a Fiscally Conservative policy if it impinged in any way on their pet issues. They all eventually vote for Liberals and Liberal causes because their desire to fornicate, do drugs and kill babies is greater than their desire to cut spending and limit government.
The evident truth is that "Independents" are not the precious "MIDDLE" favored by those who stand for nothing except political expedience.
Independents are scattered across the political spectrum, and the broad majority of that number are to the RIGHT of the Establishment Republican Party, not to the Left.
The reality is that those "independents" to the left of the GOP never vote for Republicans unless the "Republican" is a mere label for a Democrat who doesn't like to hang around the Union riff-raff...
The political spectrum is re-aligning right. Democrat/Fascist/Liberal/Marxists are beginning to spin into their gravitational well.
I guess the hope here, on the right, is that they spin themselves past the event horizon of their political insanity and disappear into a parallel universe.
R/The Mighty Fahvaag
Bob| 1.7.10 @ 2:21PM
Actually, John, most social "liberals" who are fiscal conservatives call themselves "libertarians". You should read the libertarian platform sometime.
And there is no evidence that the "political spectrum" is aligning right. The Republican party is smaller than it has ever been in modern times and unless you read the one Rasmussen poll that was an outlier, all other polls now say that generic Democrats are a much larger group than generic Republicans -- especially the new WSJ poll (from a right leaning source, nonetheless).
John - TMF| 1.7.10 @ 2:54PM
1. Libertarians generally are nihilists and anarchists who seem to operate in an environment were everyone is a "responsible adult" regardless of age, mental capacity, moral code, or social context. The Libertarian sense of "perspective" is stunningly lacking. Their philosophy seems to be mostly about themselves and what they want, desire, care-about... They are as Utopian as Leftists only they eschew using the state to impose it. Instead choosing to believe that it will occur and remain naturally absent the state.
2. In case you didn't notice... in that little set of polls you so casually mention, and use incorrectly. My assertion stands. The largest philosophical block in this nation is CONSERVATIVE, which is polling in the low 40% range as opposed to Liberal which seems to be languishing around the mid 20's.
Your error, and it is a grave one, is that Conservative equals Republican, and that, Bob, is the bone of contention. Conservatives are increasingly refusing to call themselves Republican. The GOP represents the Center-Right that forms a party organization that IF it runs on Social, Political, and Fiscal Conservatism WINS. (aka - Runs to the RIGHT).
IF it chooses to shop for the small pockets of Liberals laying about... it almost always loses... badly.
So... you can live in your own private Idaho... or in your case a place more conducive to your politics and social bent... Canada...
Tootles...
TMF
John - TMF| 1.7.10 @ 2:54PM
1. Libertarians generally are nihilists and anarchists who seem to operate in an environment were everyone is a "responsible adult" regardless of age, mental capacity, moral code, or social context. The Libertarian sense of "perspective" is stunningly lacking. Their philosophy seems to be mostly about themselves and what they want, desire, care-about... They are as Utopian as Leftists only they eschew using the state to impose it. Instead choosing to believe that it will occur and remain naturally absent the state.
2. In case you didn't notice... in that little set of polls you so casually mention, and use incorrectly. My assertion stands. The largest philosophical block in this nation is CONSERVATIVE, which is polling in the low 40% range as opposed to Liberal which seems to be languishing around the mid 20's.
Your error, and it is a grave one, is that Conservative equals Republican, and that, Bob, is the bone of contention. Conservatives are increasingly refusing to call themselves Republican. The GOP represents the Center-Right that forms a party organization that IF it runs on Social, Political, and Fiscal Conservatism WINS. (aka - Runs to the RIGHT).
IF it chooses to shop for the small pockets of Liberals laying about... it almost always loses... badly.
So... you can live in your own private Idaho... or in your case a place more conducive to your politics and social bent... Canada...
Tootles...
TMF
John - TMF| 1.7.10 @ 3:09PM
Note to Mozilla... I pushed submit once.
Note to Self: I think... ah being 50. When I am 80 will I even remember where the computer is?
;-)
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 3:13PM
All true points and said excellently. So much better than I can.
Thank you, John.
Bob| 1.7.10 @ 3:37PM
John, I'd ask you to take a look at the polling questions more closely. The question they ask is whether you consider yourself "conservative" or "liberal" -- not "a conservative" or "a liberal". Most Democrats I know would call themselves "conservative". But what does that mean? It means they don't spend money on outrageous things and don't do outrageous things. They raise their children and live their lives. This is how pollsters skew their polls, by asking questions in specific ways.
With regard to registered libertarians, I'd tend to agree with your analysis which is why I haven't joined that party. However, on social issues, I'm quite libertarian. The government has no right to enter your personal moral decisions as long as it doesn't affect other, already born, people. As to abortion, my personal belief is that late term abortions should not be tolerated and even I would have a problem voting for someone who disagreed with that. However, prior to that time, it is a decision to be made by the mother, father, and if needed, a cleric, and not by any political party. Abortion is an elective procedure and I don't believe any elective procedures should be funded by our government.
John - TMF| 1.7.10 @ 5:11PM
one last one...
Bob... please follow the link.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124.....Group.aspx
Gallup is the polling arm of the DNC and normally gives Democrat/Liberals an 8 to 10 point bump in the base numbers, and a 4 to 8 point bump (depending on how they want to shape the tone of the opinion) in the net.
So please put your belief that the country is center-left in the same box where the Dems put the "Terrorism is caused by poverty" trope. And bury it... because it is wrong.
Peace, Love, and Bobby Sherman...
TMF
Bob| 1.7.10 @ 7:11PM
Again, the question is whether or not you consider yourself "conservative", not whether you are "a conservative". Notice that 21% of Democrats call themselves "conservative".
And where do you get the information that Gallup is oriented towards Democrats? They've always been accused of leaning right, not left. In fact, all of the senior managers of Gallup, including Frank Newport, are Republicans.
Democrats still outnumber Republicans, but that is true for all polling organizations -- its not favoritism. And I don't believe the country is "center left". I'm just pointing out that liberals can be "conservative"... It's just a fact.
Robert Pryor| 1.7.10 @ 2:38PM
I think Bob asks a pretty good question. What is a liberal Republican, and who is a RINO? Are all pro-choice Republicans RINOs?
I really like Mr. Antle's work, and I take his point regarding the politicians he highlights, but I do think, as a general matter, that Republicans need to better compete in purple districts. And, that means we need some good moderate Republicans.
martin j smith| 1.7.10 @ 3:53PM
When Republicans act like Democrats, who needs them. There is a need in this country for a active,opposition party to the Democrat Party. RINOVILLE is not the answer and in fact has failed. Thus the losses of 06 and 08. By the way I consider GWB a RINO because too was a big spender,refused to deal with border security and proper immigration legislation and in fact refused to challenge the Democrat Party head on on many national security issues as well. Head on is the operative term. This means getting on the pipe ( that would be TV ) and addressing the nation. Finally, all of the efforts of Lindsey Graham,john MacCaine and others to do the bi-partisan dance failed to bring bi-partisanship. These guys danced alone. So enough already.
Go for the jugular so to speak,challenge the Democrat Party's economic and defense policies in the face so to speak and give the voters a real choice. And show the voter that their elected representatives are working for them.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.7.10 @ 4:35PM
Folks,
It may have changed, but the last time I read the Republican "PLATFORM" it pretty much suited me.
We just gotta' find and elect more people that will stand or die on its principles.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 5:27PM
Thank you Ken! Whew.. it gets rather lonely around here sometimes.. just sometimes. :^)
John - TMF| 1.7.10 @ 5:43PM
There are years when being a Conservative Republican is about the most difficult thing to be in the socio-political world.
The Mainstream Media hates you. The "moderates" think what the media tell them to think and the Democrats... well they are the Mainstream Media... so they hate you too..
This is genuine hate, vitriolic name calling, insult your mother hate...
But my religion tells me that adherence to God's truth tends to bring these things. Jesus promised us that we would be subjected to such things for our religious beliefs.
It seems our political beliefs are subjected to such"buffets and spitting" as well.
I always sort of chuckle when the Social Liberals (aka all liberals) accuse those of us social and fiscal Conservatives of mixing politics and religion. Pot this is kettle... kettle meet pot.
At least politics isn't my religion, and the State isn't my god.
Peace folks... God Bless... keep up the good thoughts, work to overcome the bad ones.
The Mighty Fahvaag
Bob| 1.7.10 @ 7:15PM
If you think that people hate Christians, what about the people on this board say about Muslims or Buddhists, or even Atheists. There is enough hate of these groups among you to overwhelm any hate of Christians. Please, give me a break and stop being so funny.
And about that mainstream media... Fox is the highest ranked cable news station and radio is owned by the right. The mainstream media is as much right as it is left. Don't you guys know how to count????
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.7.10 @ 4:44PM
Here is the Republican Platform 2008
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform
Margie| 1.8.10 @ 12:39PM
Bob~ Read it and weep (if you must)
"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged."
~Ronald Reagan
Bob| 1.8.10 @ 2:54PM
Each to his own insanity.... No weeping here...
Here's another quote:
"...when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome—others will fill the vacuum. And those who do are likely to be those with the most insular views of faith, or who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends."
-- Barack Obama
Sound familiar???? I think he's talking about YOU!!!!!
In addition, Obama put out a piece of literature during the campaign that says he will be a president "guided by his Christian faith" and includes a quote from him saying, "I believe in the power of prayer."
I think he has a problem as well.... But that is just my personal opinion...