# Karl Rove Offers A Way Out the of the Wilderness



## Kingsfield (Nov 15, 2006)

Karl Rove help lead the GOP into wilderness. Do you agree with his suggestions for getting them out?

A Way Out the of the Wilderness by Karl Rove


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

Kingsfield said:


> Karl Rove help lead the GOP into wilderness.


Amen.
I have no exceptions except possibly #3, if he thinks a 'war on terror' involves actual bullets and explosions on our part. Everybody thinks getting serious with intelligence (without unconstitutional surveillance of citizens) is good, but supporting pointless military action abroad is a no-go. Particularly unilateral hegemonic military action that could be averted via sensible policy.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Is Karl Rove a Chrysler executive? Blindfold ( a Rush limbaugh pocket square) and cigarette is all he merits.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Mostly good, but #9 loses me. Repubs need to quit telling everyone how to live their lives. Until they abandon the relationship with the religious fanatics*, I'm voting Libertarian.



* if your most important issue is abortion, you are a religious fanatic.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

android said:


> * if your most important issue is abortion, you are a religious fanatic.


What would you call someone for whom abortion rights are the most important issue?


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> What would you call someone for whom abortion rights are the most important issue?


They'd be a pro choice fanatic and equally screwed up in my opinion. Any single issue voter is an ignorant fool.

But, that said, most pro choice advocates seem to me to consider a candidate for a variety of issue and being pro-choice is a plus. Whereas, pro-lifers will completely dismiss a candidate regardless of where he stands on other issues based on that one issue alone. That puts them more completely into my "ignorant fool" classification.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> Is Karl Rove a Chrysler executive? Blindfold ( a Rush limbaugh pocket square) and cigarette is all he merits.


I thought it was the ghost of Captain Edward Smith come back to give new steering orders to the helm. Then again that might be seen as insulting Captain Smith.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

android said:


> They'd be a pro choice fanatic and equally screwed up in my opinion. Any single issue voter is an ignorant fool.
> *
> But, that said, most pro choice advocates seem to me to consider a candidate for a variety of issue and being pro-choice is a plus. Whereas, pro-lifers will completely dismiss a candidate regardless of where he stands on other issues based on that one issue alone.* That puts them more completely into my "ignorant fool" classification.


When a pro-life Democrat runs for the Presidency then you'll see an exhibition of civic unrest that is sure to change your opinion!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

android said:


> Mostly good, but #9 loses me. Repubs need to quit telling everyone how to live their lives. Until they abandon the relationship with the religious fanatics*, I'm voting Libertarian.
> 
> * if your most important issue is abortion, you are a religious fanatic.


+1. Single-issue voting is nearsighted and dangerous, and it frustrates me to no end how this one issue (and the religious fanatics to promote it) have highjacked the GOP in the past 25 years. Though I dislike Rove immensely, I would never question his intellect. Honestly, I pretty much agree with Rove with the exception of point #9.

Will the GOP ever have the guts to back either a pro-choice candiate...or at least someone who is farily agnostic on the issue? If your remember, even Reagan was fairly mum on the the topic.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> What would you call someone for whom abortion rights are the most important issue?


If you mean someone who wishes to impose his or her convictions on the lives of others as a matter of public policy...I would call that individual a person with strong moral convictions which lie outside the mainstream of American thought.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

A bit of historical perspective is useful in this case. The Republican Party was formed because neither of the two parties in existence at the time would take an stand against slavery. The Democrats were a pro-slavery party and the Whigs basically tried to avoid the issue in every election.

If the Republican party abandons social conservatives, the Democratic party is certainly not going to take up the issues that social conservatives care about. If neither party represent those idea, social conservatives will be forced to form a third party which will siphon votes away from the Republicans.

If anyone bothers to read exit polling information, a lot of people who voted for Bush voted against the Republicans this time because they were angry at the abandonment of fiscal conservatism over the last 8 years. Many of the Republicans who lost were moderate Republicans and big spenders; many of the new Democrats who won represent the more moderate wing of the Party (excluding Obama). They are pro-gun, some are more socially conservative than the average Democrat. This is the same profile of the Freshmen Democrats that won in 2006.

The election does not represent a major lurch left. It was basically an election about punishing a bad president, and that was furthered by the fact that the Republicans put up a bad candidate (Bob Dole II).


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

A question for everyone. If politics is an attempt to influence public policy to make it more amenable to your beliefs, what does it matter on what issues someone votes or on what they base their beliefs on those issues?

Over the past few years people have basically argued that religion should have no part in politics. Ok, but why should Karl Marx, Russel Kirk, Ludwig von Mises or Edmund Burke? Aren't they all just competing philosophies?

I don't like single issue voters because they are easily manipulated. Many Republican candidates have used abortion as an issue, and have had no real intent to change anything. If they did, they would lose the issue and those that support it. Republicans have a strong interest in keeping abortion as an issue, rather than in actually doing anything about it.

But having said that, why is someone who votes based on that one issue wrong? If that, or the flat-tax, or gay marriage is extremely important, than why shouldn't they go out and advocate for it by supporting candidate that support their beliefs?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Terpoxon said:


> A question for everyone. If politics is an attempt to influence public policy to make it more amenable to your beliefs, what does it matter on what issues someone votes or on what they base their beliefs on those issues?
> 
> Over the past few years people have basically argued that religion should have no part in politics. Ok, but why should Karl Marx, Russel Kirk, Ludwig von Mises or Edmund Burke? Aren't they all just competing philosophies?
> 
> ...


There is nothing inherently foolish about according such weight to an issue that it overwhelmes the aggregate weight accorded to all other issues. I disagree with Obama on most issues, but if he were pro-life and McCain were pro-choice I would have supported Obama without reservation. A society that affords its unborn with no legal protection is as morally bankrupt as a society that affords African-Americans or Jews no legal protection. And yes, I would have been a single issue voter in the US 1850s and Weimar Republic too.

Also, the casting of aspersions on the GOP and its motives regarding abortion amuses those of us who actually are Republicans and knowledgable about party politics. Y'all probably think New Coke was a clever ploy to reinvigorate the Coke brand too.

Finally, I disagree that either Bob Dole or John McCain were bad candidates. Both are good men and solid candidates who ran against exceptional candidates with outstanding political skills. No one could have beaten Obama this year once the credit markets collapsed. Those who think Romney are kidding themselves (and Romney was my preferred candidate). At this time in our history the American people would have chosen community organizer over investment banker in a heartbeat. I hope we chose wisely. Let's give Obama a fair chance.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> +1. Single-issue voting is nearsighted and dangerous, and it frustrates me to no end how this one issue (and the religious fanatics to promote it) have highjacked the GOP in the past 25 years. Though I dislike Rove immensely, I would never question his intellect. Honestly, I pretty much agree with Rove with the exception of point #9.
> 
> Will the GOP ever have the guts to back either a pro-choice candiate...or at least someone who is farily agnostic on the issue? If your remember, even Reagan was fairly mum on the the topic.


Speaking as someone who defines himself as a moderate Republican -- which these days, of course, means a Democrat -- I concur with this. Not that I care much if the current GOP implodes further, but I do think Rove is pretty much correct except for #9, which is a non-starter. Palinism (can we call it that now? It's catchy) appeals to a shrinking demographic that won't win Republicans elections in the future.

David Brooks's recent columns about how the Republicans have driven away educated, affluent, coastal voters, and how the party will likely tack farther right before it comes to its senses, are must reading.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> There is nothing inherently foolish about according such weight to an issue that it overwhelmes the aggregate weight accorded to all other issues. I disagree with Obama on most issues, but if he were pro-life and McCain were pro-choice I would have supported Obama without reservation. A society that affords its unborn with no legal protection is as morally bankrupt as a society that affords African-Americans or Jews no legal protection. And yes, I would have been a single issue voter in the US 1850s and Weimar Republic too.


Just one comment here, so as not to hijack the thread: America is not with you on this issue. America has not been with you on this issue for a good forty years. Every reliable poll-taker can affirm this. And the Republican Party has only ever been anxious to *keep the issue in play* so as to keep voters like you on the hook. They are certainly not looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would be highly unpopular. They have *never* been serious about over-turning.

Let me be blunt about this: if you have been voting based on candidates' "support" for a right-to-life position, for the past however many years, *you have been had*. The candidates thank you.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> But having said that, why is someone who votes based on that one issue wrong? If that, or the flat-tax, or gay marriage is extremely important, than why shouldn't they go out and advocate for it by supporting candidate that support their beliefs?


I don't think that a single issue voter is wrong. I do believe that a single issue party, or a party that tests one on a single issue before one is admitted beyond the velvet rope, is doomed to its eventual demise as public opinion and consensus move on.

Buzz


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> A society that affords its unborn with no legal protection is as morally bankrupt as a society that affords African-Americans or Jews no legal protection.


When I see "right to life" voters putting major energy into promoting policies that improve the lot of babies born into poverty and children living in it, both in the United States and abroad, then I will take those voters a little more seriously. But of course, I had best not hold my breath. I have never gotten why the pre-born are a societal responsibility while the born are merely a parental responsibility. Seems to me that is backwards.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

topbroker said:


> Just one comment here, so as not to hijack the thread: America is not with you on this issue. America has not been with you on this issue for a good forty years. Every reliable poll-taker can affirm this. And the Republican Party has only ever been anxious to *keep the issue in play* so as to keep voters like you on the hook. They are certainly not looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would be highly unpopular. They have *never* been serious about over-turning.


Polls are all over the place on the issue of Roe and abortion. Much depends on how questions are presented, as always. And the notion of a monolitic Republican Party design to simply use abortion for political purposes is just not true. No doubt some Republicans are sympathetic to such a tactic; others are not -- either because they are pro-choice or because they are pro-life. The assertion that the secret and monolithic party elders have been exercising the strategy you describe is a canard that has currency because so many people just keep repeating it. As a long-standing Republican who counts many operatives and leaders as friends, I know for a fact that what you assert is false. The truth is always more messy. For instance, Bush II definitely viewed Roe as both lawless and morally bankrupt and genuinely wanted it overturned. His father was more indifferent. McCain's views align more with Bush II but not as a priority. Other Republicans are all over the place, which is obvious if you just observe.

But if your primary point is that most Americans do not accord the abortion issue the kind of weight that I do, then I absolutely agree. I wish they did, and some day they may. But the fact that most Americans don't see it as all that important does not alter the fact that I do. Nor does it alter my responsiblity to work for justice as I best understand it. I would hardly have been among the majority in the Weimar Republic either.

Your secondary point may be that the Republican Party's assertion of pro-life views impairs its ability to become a majority party (which is curiously at tension with your view that it is a dishonest tactic used to make it a majority party), then you may be right on this too -- it is hard to know. But at least the Republican Party supports the notion that Americans should be able to decide the question using the political process, rather than by dishonest judicial fiat. I'll bet if most Americans truly understood Roe and how it dishonestly robbed the question from the American people, the Republican party position that it should be over-turned would be a majority position, even if its position that states should generally prohibit it might not be.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

topbroker said:


> When I see "right to life" voters putting major energy into promoting policies that improve the lot of babies born into poverty and children living in it, both in the United States and abroad, then I will take those voters a little more seriously. But of course, I had best not hold my breath. I have never gotten why the pre-born are a societal responsibility while the born are merely a parental responsibility. Seems to me that is backwards.


Another unfair canard not supported by the emperical data. https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216
Consistent with Brooks' study, notwithstanding how successful you may be as a top broker, I'll bet you one steak dinner that my charitable contributions are at least three times yours, measured either absolutely or by percentage of income. Seriously. A dinner at Bones when you are next in Atlanta. We can share data by pm, including tax return info. Come on, put your money where your words are.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> There is nothing inherently foolish about according such weight to an issue that it overwhelmes the aggregate weight accorded to all other issues. I disagree with Obama on most issues, but if he were pro-life and McCain were pro-choice I would have supported Obama without reservation. A society that affords its unborn with no legal protection is as morally bankrupt as a society that affords African-Americans or Jews no legal protection. And yes, I would have been a single issue voter in the US 1850s and Weimar Republic too.
> 
> Also, the casting of aspersions on the GOP and its motives regarding abortion amuses those of us who actually are Republicans and knowledgable about party politics. Y'all probably think New Coke was a clever ploy to reinvigorate the Coke brand too.
> 
> Finally, I disagree that either Bob Dole or John McCain were bad candidates. Both are good men and solid candidates who ran against exceptional candidates with outstanding political skills. No one could have beaten Obama this year once the credit markets collapsed. Those who think Romney are kidding themselves (and Romney was my preferred candidate). At this time in our history the American people would have chosen community organizer over investment banker in a heartbeat. I hope we chose wisely. Let's give Obama a fair chance.


A couple of points, in response. First, I have no problem with single issue voters, or any voters voting for a candidate based on any number of issues. I'd hope that people vote on issues, rather than personality, but my point is that several people here seem to want to drive religious voters from the public sphere, and I'd like to know why they think that is appropriate.

On the abortion issue, you are right there is a range of commitment on the issue in the Republican party, but certainly some candidates have used the issue to get support from social conservatives with no real intention of pursuing the issue in any way.

Last, I don't think McCain or Dole were bad men, but they were unexciting candidates, candidates that the base of the Republican party were lukewarm about supporting.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Another unfair canard not supported by the emperical data. https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216
> Consistent with Brooks' study, notwithstanding how successful you may be as a top broker, I'll bet you one steak dinner that my charitable contributions are at least three times yours, measured either absolutely or by percentage of income. Seriously. A dinner at Bones when you are next in Atlanta. We can share data by pm, including tax return info. Come on, put your money where your words are.


Did I say a word about charitable contributions? I said *policies*. I believe in the power of government to effect real progress, therefore I would rather pay higher taxes to that end than give more money to charities which may or (frequently) may not be effective.

I stand 100% by all my points. You won't persuade me, and I refuse to cede your kind so much as one inch of the "moral high ground"; I believe that right-to-lifers are deeply hypocritical on the whole, and to the extent they are sincere, are scientifically, intellectually, and ethically misguided. End of discussion.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Polls are all over the place on the issue of Roe and abortion. Much depends on how questions are presented, as always. And the notion of a monolitic Republican Party design to simply use abortion for political purposes is just not true. No doubt some Republicans are sympathetic to such a tactic; others are not -- either because they are pro-choice or because they are pro-life. The assertion that the secret and monolithic party elders have been exercising the strategy you describe is a canard that has currency because so many people just keep repeating it. As a long-standing Republican who counts many operatives and leaders as friends, I know for a fact that what you assert is false. The truth is always more messy. For instance, Bush II definitely viewed Roe as both lawless and morally bankrupt and genuinely wanted it overturned. His father was more indifferent. McCain's views align more with Bush II but not as a priority. Other Republicans are all over the place, which is obvious if you just observe.


I completely reject your analysis. Not one inch of progress has been made on over-turning Roe, nor will it be. Ever. Republicans have had the presidency for 28 of the past 40 years -- where has it gotten you?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

topbroker said:


> Did I say a word about charitable contributions? I said *policies*. I believe in the power of government to effect real progress, therefore I would rather pay higher taxes to that end than give more money to charities which may or (frequently) may not be effective.
> 
> I stand 100% by all my points. You won't persuade me, and I refuse to cede your kind so much as one inch of the "moral high ground"; I believe that right-to-lifers are deeply hypocritical on the whole, and to the extent they are sincere, are scientifically, intellectually, and ethically misguided. End of discussion.


Yes, it is so noble to favor tax increases on others rather than actually spend your own money, which is a point made by the liberal Brooks in his study. I knew you wouldn't take me up on my offer, but it is so typical that you ironically continue to accuse hypocricy. Pathetic really.

And Roe would have been overturned by now but for the dishonest but successful attack on Robert Bork. Given that, you may be right that Roe will now never be overurned -- or you may be wrong -- I don't possess your kind or clairovoyance. But I think it is possible and will continue to work toward it.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Say, if you _really _believe in government, would you mind covering my income taxes?


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, it is so noble to favor tax increases on others rather than actually spend your own money, which is a point made by the liberal Brooks in his study. I knew you wouldn't take me up on my offer, but it is so typical that you ironically continue to accuse hypocricy. Pathetic really.


Nothing pathetic about it. It's just a different political stance. I never expect dyed-in-the-wool conservatives to understand what taxes are really all about. But I am proud to pay mine and I think we all should be. Charitable contributions are nice and I'm not against them, but our government is where the *real* action is.

I said, by the way, that I would be willing to pay higher taxes myself, so that is my money I'm offering. I think it does more good for more people when the use of it is a public matter. That's what government is, and it has a higher accountability than any charity, because we can vote the bums out -- as, come to think of it, we just did. 

Enjoy your dwindling and increasingly irrelevant minority party!


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Charities have accountability in the sense that people choose whether or not to contribute to them based on the percentage of money that actually goes to people in need. 

It's hard to believe that anyone would argue that the government is highly accountable when billions of dollars are be given away that can't even be properly accounted for, and when we have just seen an election where millions of dollars have been donated without even identifying the donors.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> And Roe would have been overturned by now but for the dishonest but successful attack on Robert Bork.


You couldn't get your guy in because, politically speaking, he was a lousy and maladroit pick (a rare Reagan mis-step). Boo hoo. That's the game. And don't get me started on dishonest attacks (can you say "Swift Boat"?), because we'll be here all night.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Charities have accountability in the sense that people choose whether or not to contribute to them based on the percentage of money that actually goes to people in need.
> 
> It's hard to believe that anyone would argue that the government is highly accountable when billions of dollars are be given away that can't even be properly accounted for, and when we have just seen an election where millions of dollars have been donated without even identifying the donors.


For the record, I'm not in favor of the bail-outs, and I'm keeping an eye on how my representatives vote. So there is accountability there, as far as I'm concerned.

You can cry all you want about Obama being an awesomely successful fundraiser. You have my permission. It must hurt.

You are mis-informed if you think that most charitable donors know the percentage of their givings that get to the charitable targets. But I agree that they should educate themselves about that; there are better and worse charities. As previously stated, I'm not against charities; but they are narrow in scope, and government's scope is properly the good of all its constituents.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

If Karl Rove ever reads this thread he will certainly allow himself a satisfied smile. Not only are many of his own "talking points" repeated nearly verbatim but also many have been enhanced, gratis, by those that bought them without even having to be asked to do so. Rove is certainly shrewd and regularly goes beyond getting things on the cheap.

As Mark Twain wrote in one of his notebooks in 1902:

_"The low level which commercial morality has reached in America is deplorable. We have humble God fearing Christian men among us who will stoop to do things for a million dollars that they ought not to be willing to do for less than 2 millions."_​


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The Christian Right really came about when the lefts in the Democrat party stold the party and started attacking Christian beliefs. So there was a big exodus from the Democrat party. Many of, the what is now, the Christian Right were solid Democrats in the 70s and beyond. That is how much America has changed.

Karl Rove sure helped Bush win two elections but, I don't like his views of what America should be. Reagans views are pure American, whereas, Roves are kinda whacky.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, A Jew can be secular, orthodox, conservative,reformed and even an athiest. A Jew is still a Jew. 
But I take issue with this eclectic diaspora of 'christianity' called the 'right' or even 'Christian.' Better we call it 'the religious sect's reaction.'
When a RC bishop meets in Hawaii with a LDS bishop to discuss opposing the 'Gay Rights agenda' and the resulting passage of proposition 8 in California, we didn't see ecumenical joint celebratory services with RCs and Mormons led by hagee singing ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS.
No, it's merely a repeat of ' the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' And if all the icky gays, murderous pro choice advocates and people who crack their eggs in the middle vanished tommorow the 'christian right' would be sharpening it's knives to go back at each other's collective throats over some biblical passage.
So lets dispense with the 'christian' allusions to this political, earthly assembly.

And as for Uncle Ronnie, dearly as I loved him, voted for and chereished my boyhood meeting; His 'true american' vision is no more or less valid than Pete Seeger's.

From THE HUNT FOR THE RED OCTOBER--" can we dispense with the B.S.?'


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 13, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> What would you call someone for whom abortion rights are the most important issue?


A civil libertarian.
[email protected]


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, ....


This is one of your dumbest replies yet. A huge portion of the Christian Right is fundamentalist (such as Jerry Falwell), evangelical, Pentecostals and like minded. No doubt there are other groups in there too. Coming from a couple of these groups many many of these people in these groups were solid Democrats who could not be a Democrat anymore, because of the left, and from Reagan on voted Republican. Today, many of these people vote straight Republican. The Democrat stepped out of their picture, so to say.

For being a person who studies groups, cultures, etc. you sure blew it on this one.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

Two questions to those for whom outlawing abortion is a major priority:

1. How do you respond to someone like ?

2. How do you respond to people, such as observant Jews, whose religious law gives priority to the life of the mother?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I recently read a good book about the topic of abortion: _The Liberal Case Against Abortion _by Vasu Murti, an atheist.

_The day I accept as progressive the anti-human practice of willful abortion is the day I say OK to unjust war, unfettered capitalist exploitation of people and the environment, capital punishment, ethnic cleansing and so forth._

_...the mark of a humane and progressive society is an ever more expansive definition of the community for which we accept responsibility...The pro-life movement is one with the movement for the emancipation of slaves. This is the continuation of the civil rights movement, for you are the champions of the most elementary civil , indeed human right-simply the right to be. _


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

who better to lead the party out of the wilderness than the same miscreants that brought them there?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, Falwell and friends left the Democratic party about the same time much of the south did. It was over LBJ's Civil rights legislation that he prohesized would cost his party that region for a long time. And for all his shortcomings, LBJ was right on both.
If you reread my post, I opened with an example of the unchanging identity of Jews. But Christians, be they cradle born or converts can, and do walk away from whatever being a 'christian' meant in those early years.
Ram Dass could write on eastern philosophy, change his name and was still jewish. But christians, regardless of cult or sect, can pop up in a new personae and retain as cultural baggage no more than all westerners do from greek and judeochristian culture.
Nobody thinks of the late Alan Watts as a former anglican priest. Alan Watts is the man who largely introduced buddhism to the beat generation in black buddhist robes from a houseboat smoking cigers, drinking vodka and popping LSD.
And it is my argument, my pain that the other side of this cameleon nature of christianity gives cause for a great deal of UNCHRISTIAN behaviour.
I don't expect everyone to join an eastern orthodox monastery and make goat cheese or paint icons under the afternoon sun.
But niether do I expect, or condone the eric rudolphs, pastor hagees and their ilk spewing hatred and calling it love.
They all got their start with a part of america undergoing uncertain change. It was called civil rights, not Roe vs Wade. It's the same old conflict of Protestantism vs Roman Catholic, with all sects forever locked in a physical siamese twin existence over that spiritual division and every new perceived threat and challenge. You are FUNDAMENTALY based on an antagonistic world view.
yesterday was catholics. this morning blacks, noontime abortion ane this afternoon islam. And come evening, when the martians land and hand a signed holy book of the martian creed to President Obama
it will be their turn, poor little green fellers.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*My single issue is Social Security*

I would vote for anyone who promised to abolish it.

Also, I found it interesting that the discussion of number 9 was limited to abortion. Rove also mentioned gay marriage, which the same people who put Obama over the top in Florida and California overwhelmingly opposed.

Whether you agree with them or not, there are a lot of people in this country who do view "cultural issues" as relevant, if not the only single issue on which to base a vote. The Democratic Party has had to pretty much abandon this group to the Republicans, despite the fact that many can and would align themselves with the Dems on other issues.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

agnash said:


> I would vote for anyone who promised to abolish it.
> 
> Also, I found it interesting that the discussion of number 9 was limited to abortion. Rove also mentioned gay marriage, which the same people who put Obama over the top in Florida and California overwhelmingly opposed.
> 
> Whether you agree with them or not, there are a lot of people in this country who do view "cultural issues" as relevant, if not the only single issue on which to base a vote. The Democratic Party has had to pretty much abandon this group to the Republicans, despite the fact that many can and would align themselves with the Dems on other issues.


I think there is re-alighnment going on right now (whether "permanent" or not remains to be seen). Look at my home state of Wisconsin, a reliably blue state in national elections because of the population weight of Milwaukee and Madison, but historically red or purple in other areas, including the entire rural heartland. Obama took 59 of 72 Wisconsin counties; of the 13 he did not take, 10 were suburban/exurban counties near Milwaukee or Minneapolis (interestingly, since suburbs and exurbs tilted for Obama nationally).

This means that *only three Wisconsin rural counties voted for McCain. Three.* And Wisconsin's rural counties are heavily invested in the cultural issues you speak of.

Another observation regarding the 2008 vote: Obama *owned* urban America, completely owned it. I spotted only five significant cities in the entire country that voted for McCain: Jacksonville (by a hair), Mobile, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa (the state of Oklahoma was entirely red). In Texas -- catch this -- Obama took not only Austin (predictably), but also Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso (as well as large chunks of more Hispanic southern Texas).

Since Obama also, as noted, performed better in the suburbs and exurbs than Democrats have done recently (in part because, as David Brooks has pointed out, Republicans have been pushing away the educated professionals who populate those areas), that leaves the GOP with largely de-populated "Sarah Palin counties." They are welcome to them.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

topbroker said:


> Since Obama also, as noted, performed better in the suburbs and exurbs than Democrats have done recently (in part because, as David Brooks has pointed out, Republicans have been pushing away the educated professionals who populate those areas), that leaves the GOP with largely de-populated "Sarah Palin counties." They are welcome to them.


Obama did very well, better than any recent Democrat, but he did it against a president who was extraordinarily unpopular, even in his own party, and he did it with a very conservative position, especially for a Democrat. How many recent Democrats would endorse the death penalty for child rapists, as Obama did? He also came out against gay marriage, and declared himself in favor of the Supreme Court ruling on the DC gun ban. He won, not by turning people into Democrats, but by turning his campaign to the right, in order to capture the middle. MSNBC and CNN have run really excellent articles recently on the new crop of Democratic senators and congressmen with who Reid and Pelosi will have to deal. Many of these new members are from historically conservative areas and are very concerned about losing their seats if the party leadership forces them to support policies that will not play well back home. I believe smart democrats are very concerned about a repeat of 1994, while at the same time hoping to push public policy to the left. it is a very fine line, that both parties usually fail to walk.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

agnash said:


> Obama did very well, better than any recent Democrat, but he did it against a president who was extraordinarily unpopular, even in his own party, and he did it with a very conservative position, especially for a Democrat. How many recent Democrats would endorse the death penalty for child rapists, as Obama did? He also came out against gay marriage, and declared himself in favor of the Supreme Court ruling on the DC gun ban. He won, not by turning people into Democrats, but by turning his campaign to the right, in order to capture the middle. MSNBC and CNN have run really excellent articles recently on the new crop of Democratic senators and congressmen with who Reid and Pelosi will have to deal. Many of these new members are from historically conservative areas and are very concerned about losing their seats if the party leadership forces them to support policies that will not play well back home. I believe smart democrats are very concerned about a repeat of 1994, while at the same time hoping to push public policy to the left. it is a very fine line, that both parties usually fail to walk.


Can't say as I disagree with you. People's views on social issues, *both on the right and on the left*, seem to me to be less malleable than their views on other issues. So both parties might be well advised to go light on social issues. Obama certainly went lighter than Palin, and it served him well.

The generation coming up does have a preponderantly liberal/libertarian view of social issues, which could benefit the Democratic Party in the years ahead.

In my opinion, the Republican Party will continue to make polite noises about the right to life and Roe v. Wade, but that is all they will be, noise. That movement will continue to lose steam. The anti-gay marriage constituency has at most a few viable years left.

The next *potent* incarnation of the Republican Party will not be fully libertarian, but it will have much more of a libertarian flavor, less of a religious right flavor, than the incarnation we have become used to. Predicted time of arrival: 2014, give or take.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, Falwell and friends left the Democratic party about the same time much of the south did. ....


Your arguement is still stupid, like saying everybody who votes Democrat is for abortion. The Christian Right is many people. Many of the ones I knew voted for LBJ. LBJ is before there was a Christian Right. Who even heard of Falwell until about 1980s? Even the media didn't know anything about the Southern Baptish. To my knowledge the Southern Baptish were never for slavery, but were against it. I'm sure you can find a judas in most groups, so I guess you are going to criticize Jesus, too. Your belief in all religions certainly makes you into a non-christian. I don't know of a religion that says you can be of other faiths too. You criticism is because you have no faith in God, so go with the flow of the world, which God hates. Everything in the Bible that says God hates- you don't believe. You would rather fit in with the world than than make a Christian stand. And so many of your christian leaders are atheist or agnostics, so both are not Christians. You have to believe in a real God to be a real Christian. Atheist and agnostics don't fit the description of believing in God do they? Further more, I doubt you know much of what the Christian Right really is. Your writings certainly don't show it. But on the other hand there are certainly some groups who claim to be of the Christian Right that I don't agree with.

I think you are like a fish out of water when you talk about the Christian Right.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> *Your arguement is still stupid*, like saying everybody who votes Democrat is for abortion. The Christian Right is many people. Many of the ones I knew voted for LBJ. LBJ is before there was a Christian Right. Who even heard of Falwell until about 1980s? Even the media didn't know anything about the Southern Baptish. To my knowledge the Southern Baptish were never for slavery, but were against it. I'm sure you can find a judas in most groups, so I guess you are going to criticize Jesus, too. Your belief in all religions certainly makes you into a non-christian. I don't know of a religion that says you can be of other faiths too. You criticism is because you have no faith in God, so go with the flow of the world, which God hates. Everything in the Bible that says God hates- you don't believe. You would rather fit in with the world than than make a Christian stand. And so many of your christian leaders are atheist or agnostics, so both are not Christians. You have to believe in a real God to be a real Christian. Atheist and agnostics don't fit the description of believing in God do they? Further more, I doubt you know much of what the Christian Right really is. Your writings certainly don't show it. But on the other hand there are certainly some groups who claim to be of the Christian Right that I don't agree with.
> 
> I think you are like a fish out of water when you talk about the Christian Right.


That's really astonishing, Wa calling somebody else stupid.

Buzz


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

topbroker said:


> The generation coming up does have a preponderantly liberal/libertarian view of social issues, which could benefit the Democratic Party in the years ahead.


I agree and disagree with this. I would agree that the generation coming up is more comfortable with gay rights, but I have seen a lot of polling information that suggests that their views on abortion are a lot more complex that the opinions of their elders. I do think they want to keep it legal, but they also seem more interested in restricting it to the second, or even the first, trimester. Carville and Begal's book Take It Back has some really interesting takes on adjusting Democratic stances on social issues in order to be better in line with the majority of voters opinions. Actually, based on his campaing positions, I gotta believe somebody in the Obama camp read that book and took it to heart.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

WA said:


> Your arguement is still stupid, like saying everybody who votes Democrat is for abortion. The Christian Right is many people. Many of the ones I knew voted for LBJ. LBJ is before there was a Christian Right. Who even heard of Falwell until about 1980s? Even the media didn't know anything about the Southern Baptish. To my knowledge the Southern Baptish were never for slavery, but were against it. I'm sure you can find a judas in most groups, so I guess you are going to criticize Jesus, too. Your belief in all religions certainly makes you into a non-christian. I don't know of a religion that says you can be of other faiths too. You criticism is because you have no faith in God, so go with the flow of the world, which God hates. Everything in the Bible that says God hates- you don't believe. You would rather fit in with the world than than make a Christian stand. And so many of your christian leaders are atheist or agnostics, so both are not Christians. You have to believe in a real God to be a real Christian. Atheist and agnostics don't fit the description of believing in God do they? Further more, I doubt you know much of what the Christian Right really is. Your writings certainly don't show it. But on the other hand there are certainly some groups who claim to be of the Christian Right that I don't agree with.
> 
> I think you are like a fish out of water when you talk about the Christian Right.


For most Americans, LBJ v. Goldwater was an easy choice. Nevertheless, Goldwater carried the Deep South. As LBJ predicted, doing the right thing on civil rights turned the South over to the Republicans for at least a generation.

Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979. And (what Andrew Sullivan calls) Christianist politics antedate that.

The Southern Baptist Convention was born as a pro-slavery church. It became a separate denomination in 1845, splitting with northern Baptists over slavery.

That said, Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist when he ran for, and served as, President. His religiousity drew considerable public, including media, attention.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA
Better a 'fish out of water' than a crome plated, chicom manufactured one on a rear bumper with Washington plates and a Rapture warning sticker.
My christian identity began in ( Oscar Wilde, who shares my birthday) earnest in the 4th grade. I spent three halcyon years in an Anglican private school and was baptised into that church.
It was that stamp of both tradition and enlightenment that in fact opened my mind and heart to learn about Buddhism, Orangemen and a cornucopia of pleasures in between.
It's called an education.
And as you well know, I have been chrismated into Orthodoxy after the Episcopalian church fell into turmoil. I left, not because of those issues, but the unchristian manner they were being discussed. 
Something along the lines of your last reply.
You in fact passed judgement on my faith.
I'm not sure which translation of the bible you use, but I think the story is pretty straightforward.
Something about " Judge not, lest yea shall be judged?"
You might want to ponder that one, next time you raise your hands to the heavens and talk in tongues like you typeat that converted laundromat you attend.
I forgive you WA. You just can't help yourself.
The devil made you do it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Glad you left the Episcopalians, for now. Don't know much about Orthodoxy, they sound more interesting.

I listened to a preacher who had been an Orangemen. Told his story about how he got into it. When I listened to him he was Pentecostal preacher.


----------

