Republicans should give up on abortion.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And, no, being dedicated to our base isn't why we lost in these past two cycles. Being dedicated to our base didn't lead to an economic collapse. People didn't vote on ideology; they voted after they were thrown into a panic. I'm never going to be one of those people that say we lost because McCain wasn't conservative enough. However, the simple fact of the matter was that he didn't have in place a campaign that turned out that base that helped us so much in 2002 and 2004. Palin couldn't do that alone.

You bring up 2006, but then focus on one specific reason of why Republicans lost this election cycle. Did you lose in 2006 because of an economic collapse?

I'm not sure what you mean by "people don't vote on ideology" anyway, because the first thing you're going to do about my above post is say "No, we lost there because of the war." People always vote on ideology. Certain events may highlight certain negative aspects of a particular ideology, but people still vote on it.

I'm at a loss for why you or alot of Republicans can't understand that taking a hard stance against something that has widespread support (Abortion) or taking a hard stance against something with continually gaining popular support (Gay Marriage) is a wise move (strictly politically speaking, please don't drone on about how I don't care about 'life') for a party to make. It seems that many in the party are determined to make sure the Republican Party remains the Oklahoma Party.

And before I end this, something just dawned on me. You're saying that people don't vote on ideology, they voted because they were thrown into a panic? Were people not thrown into a panic by the Republicans in 2002 and 2004? Just wondering.

To become more popular and expand your reach, as Ive said repeatedly, the Republican Party has to stop putting such heavy emphasis on social issues, and become more tolerant of other opinions. There are several Democrats that I can think of on this board alone that would become Republicans if they didn't feel like it was hijacked (well, it is) by religious fundamentalists. Many Republicans, even some from the families of popular Republicans of decades past, have either switched their political affiliation or just stopped caring about the party altogether, and it's not because of economics, it's because you've become the Palin/Huckabee Party.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not saying that Republicans should drop the issues entirely, I'm just saying, with issues like Abortion where there is alot of support, placing such a heavy emphasis in opposition to Abortion isn't always a wise move nationally. In the South, I'm sure you can get alot of support for anti-abortion candidates, but does the Republican Party want to focus on the morality of one region and apply it to the rest of the country? Don't they want to avoid being a regional party?

Though popular support for Gay Marriage is on the rise each year, it would be silly for Democrats to run a candidate that supports Gay Marriage and talks about it on the campaign trail at every opportunity, and pledged to appoint "pro-gay justices" and so on. Democrats are wise enough to place emphasis on liberal social values where necessary, but they also know where to ignore (or outright oppose) the issue. Republicans have no such tact, most of the time, anyway.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm a fiscal/economic conservative as well, my friend, but don't try to move what is equally important to me out of the debate just because you don't like it.

Hard to tell, considering everything you talk about here.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm a fiscal/economic conservative as well, my friend, but don't try to move what is equally important to me out of the debate just because you don't like it.

Hard to tell, considering everything you talk about here.

Uh...I've spoken plenty about economic issues and I'm certainly very passionate about cutting out wasteful spending.

I rarely see you talking about anything but social issues when you're discussing these sort of things.

Also 'wasteful spending' is quite vague.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm a fiscal/economic conservative as well, my friend, but don't try to move what is equally important to me out of the debate just because you don't like it.

Hard to tell, considering everything you talk about here.

Uh...I've spoken plenty about economic issues and I'm certainly very passionate about cutting out wasteful spending.

I rarely see you talking about anything but social issues when you're discussing these sort of things.

Also 'wasteful spending' is quite vague.

You really are a pain in the ass of the highest order.

I'm so sorry that you haven't seen me discuss anything but social issues. Wait, no, I'm not.

So now "wasteful spending" isn't specific enough? Pork. Earmarks. Good enough? Oh, and does that count as an economic/fiscal issue?

As Lunar might say, you're being all loose cannon..

My point is that when I've seen you discuss political issues, I've rarely (if ever) seen you delve into a debate that didn't have to do with a social issue. Have you actually argued numbers over something or is that too "thinky?"

Also, unfortunately, it's not. And that's not me being a pain in the ass, that's me being concerned over the Republican definition of pork which, often times, is actually something useful, like infrastructure spending. This isn't even the topic though, so I should probably delete everything I've said here to avoid derailment.

But what the hell, it's Atlas.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too thinky? Are you really going to imply that I'm not smart? Really?

I guess if we're not arguing numbers on the forum, we're just dumbs!

I'm not saying you're dumb, I'm just saying that you seem disproportionately focused on social issues over economic ones. It's not like that's an insult, it's just the observation I and presumably others have made.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you honestly telling me, whether you agree with my position on the issue or not, that earmarks aren't a fiscal matter? Wow. Unbelievable. That's totally trollish. Anything to start a problem.[/quote]

Do you have a problem with being chronically disingenuous? I meant that it's a vague talking-pointy phrase to say "I don't like wasteful spending." Of course you don't like wasteful spending, it's wasteful spending. I was saying that the wasteful spending part was vague, then said in response to your reply that "it might not count" by saying pork that it didn't count under the assumption that you meant I would reply that that too is too vague. What is your problem?

And once again, Phil, almost no one here is saying that the Republican Party should cut out the social conservatives, all we're saying is that you need the tact that the Democratic Party has adopted on social issues (like gay marriage) when it comes to approaching them.

I'm not saying that Republicans should drop the issues entirely, I'm just saying, with issues like Abortion where there is alot of support, placing such a heavy emphasis in opposition to Abortion isn't always a wise move nationally. In the South, I'm sure you can get alot of support for anti-abortion candidates, but does the Republican Party want to focus on the morality of one region and apply it to the rest of the country? Don't they want to avoid being a regional party?

Though popular support for Gay Marriage is on the rise each year, it would be silly for Democrats to run a candidate that supports Gay Marriage and talks about it on the campaign trail at every opportunity, and pledged to appoint "pro-gay justices" and so on. Democrats are wise enough to place emphasis on liberal social values where necessary, but they also know where to ignore (or outright oppose) the issue. Republicans have no such tact, most of the time, anyway.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How was I being disingenuous? You said that earmarks don't count as an economic/fiscal issue...unless you're claiming otherwise in that horrificly written sentence that I bolded.

My intention was made perfectly clear, Phil. I said wasteful spending didn't count because it's too vague. You responded with "I hate pork and earmarks, but you'll probably think that doesn't count" to which I said "No it doesn't count, because pork is also vague." How in the world did you think I was saying it didn't count as an economic issue, of course it does!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I can't vouch for Fezzy's true intentions, but I entered this discussion under the assumption that would be a mature discussion over the purely political impact of holding unpopular or hard stances among the GOP base. You unfortunately took personal offense to the very idea of this discussion apparently, and are now accusing others of hating on social conservatives, and attacking you.

[Marokai Backbeat]

My intention was made perfectly clear, Phil. I said wasteful spending didn't count because it's too vague. You responded with "I hate pork and earmarks, but you'll probably think that doesn't count" to which I said "No it doesn't count, because pork is also vague." How in the world did you think I was saying it didn't count as an economic issue, of course it does!

...

So you say that it doesn't count because it's "vague"...and then say of course it counts as an economic issue?

Are you serious? You really are a dumb, hack troll.

Phil, what the f**k are you even talking about anymore? Do you really not understand something so simple or are you just trying to keep fighting? I meant it doesn't count as evidence that you have some sort of deep-rooted history of economic discussions or interest because you brought up "wasteful spending" and "pork."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I went over why it's assinine and suicidal from a "purely political" standpoint to dismiss social conservatism.
[/quote]

No one is talking about dismissing social conservatives!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Phil, what the f**k are you even talking about anymore? Do you really not understand something so simple or are you just trying to keep fighting? I meant it doesn't count as evidence that you have some sort of deep-rooted history of economic discussions or interest because you brought up "wasteful spending" and "pork."

Who the hell are you? Honestly. Like I have to prove my economic credentials to you of all people to prove that I really care about more than just social issues. Get a hobby, child.

I'm sorry but, what the hell is your problem? What have I ever done to you? Why do you feel the need to be so mean immediately?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

I. Stated. Several. Times. Now. That. Fezzy. Has. Said. That. We. Are. A. Waste. Of. Time. And. He. Doesn't. Care. If. We. Leave. The. Party.

Was that clear enough?
[/quote]

The most I've seen fezzy say in this thread is that the Republican Party is too dedicated to catering to the base and that you should ignore these issues for awhile. I certainly never said you should be dismissed, Weasel never said you should be dismissed, Leif never said that you should be dismissed, Lunar never said that you should be dismissed, Realisticidealist never said you should be dismissed.

What you've done here is somehow interpret "We need to drop these volatile social issues because we're trying to obsessively apply them on a national level" as "We need to drop all social conservatives because they're crazy."

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think the reason abortion isn't moving in a similar way towards total acceptance like gay marriage is mainly because the battle for gay marriage is fought day in and day out, on television, in the court rooms, on the streets, and so on. It's a battle that isn't really over yet and it keeps people's attention.

Abortion has likely mostly stalled out in terms of social acceptance because people view 30 years ago as the "end" of that battle and just stopped caring one way or another. For a long time now, attitudes on abortion haven't changed because there's no real reason for them to change.

That's why there's a lot of hypothesizing that banning abortion, or simply overturning Roe, would cripple the pro-life movement because it would bring a previously won battle back to the forefront, forcing women everywhere to restart a battle they already thought was over. The backlash would be immense. (Comparable to the Prop 8 backlash, which revoked already existing rights. Many people took those rights for granted or just expected them to remain in place, but when they were stripped away, it garnered worldwide attention and caused pro-gay marriage marches to spark all over the country.)