Huckabee unleashes on GOP Establishment - Could he go rogue at RNC?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Even though I think Huckabee's style of social conservatism is utterly crazy, he's certainly right about the "being used" comment. If you purport to believe in that social conservatism, have the bravery to implement it.

I want to see the backlash.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Huck may have a point but Akin is clearly the wrong battle to try and make it over. There are certain things you just can't say while running for elected office and Akin said one of them. Basically that's it.

Agreed

I don't understand why saying something is what seems to bother you two so much, but not the actual policy in question that the stupid splitting-hairs-about-rape thing comes from. Absolutely granted that Akin has terrible opinions on literally everything, but sometimes I feel like Republicans get more upset about bad press than anything else, as if you're afraid to look in the policy-mirror and see Akin, or you've compartmentalized campaigning and policymaking from each other to such a degree that you can't understand how there is such a small leap from holding that policy position to making that statement.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Huck may have a point but Akin is clearly the wrong battle to try and make it over. There are certain things you just can't say while running for elected office and Akin said one of them. Basically that's it.

Agreed

I don't understand why saying something is what seems to bother you two so much, but not the actual policy in question that the stupid splitting-hairs-about-rape thing comes from. Absolutely granted that Akin has terrible opinions on literally everything, but sometimes I feel like Republicans get more upset about bad press than anything else, as if you're afraid to look in the policy-mirror and see Akin, or you've compartmentalized campaigning and policymaking from each other to such a degree that you can't understand how there is such a small leap from holding that policy position to making that statement.

Uhhh... because he just suggested you can't get pregnant by being raped. That's not called "social conservatism" that called stupid. And it's hugely detrimental to the pro-life cause because it helps to foster the attitude the being pro-life has nothing to do with life and is all about wanting to control women. He completely shifted the debate in the wrong direction. From a policy standpoint they might be the same, but campaigns do matter. Words do matter. How you conduct yourself matters. Real life isn't Atlasia; people expect competent governance. And really Marokai, the policy end is completely moot anyway at the moment because Roe is in place and the Human Life Amendment is politically feasible. The entire rape distinction is politically irrelevant because there aren't the votes to outlaw it anyway. And this entire argument is beside the point when it comes to abortion anyway because only 1% of US abortions occur because of rape anyway. Before worrying about that 1%, I want to see the other 99% outlawed first.

Conduct matters, but policy is more important than conduct, because at the end of the day, the policy is what we get stuck with, not the silly statements of someone's campaign. What Akin said is ignorant, but it's the justification to the "forcible rape" nonsense that Republicans have proposed and argued in defense of for a long time now, and I get the sense that the Conservative movement has grown a bit oblivious to the words coming out of your mouths.

The Akin position on abortion is your party's official national platform's position. The splitting hairs about rape proposal was co-sponsored by your Presidential candidate's running mate in congress. Conveniently, all of that stuff is ignored in national news, because platform and policymaking are boring civic things that people tend not to pay as much attention to. But they are still real, and it only seems to get offensive when someone is arguing loudly in defense of them, but you don't get upset when they're proposing them. You're like a criminal only apologizing for being caught.

You act offended because of Akin's supposed utter ignorance and misogyny, but all you're really offended about is that he chose the wrong word. You're only arguing semantics with Akin at the end of the day. It is a very short jump from that policy to that argument, and you're only going to stop making completely ignorant statements when you stop trying to defend completely ignorant policies. I at least expect intellectual honesty from the Republican side, which is why the only person being respectable here is Huckabee.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's ignored because while being policy it's still not actually going to be implemented. It's arguing about a hypothetical alternate reality.

I just don't see what that changes. You don't get to make the proposal but not be expected to seriously defend it. And if you're going to defend it, the least you (speaking generally) could do is be intellectually honest about your position.

The obvious truth here is that there is no easy or sensitive way to argue about splitting up distinctions about rape; the only way to easily implement them is to do so with very little attention, and that's why every time someone proposes something, it's not news, the second anyone defends them, you act like it's outrageous. But it's not really that outrageous, you just pretend for it to be for the cameras. At most you're only offended about choice of words. It's all rather cowardly.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well in politics, we generally do try to win elections.

I know this may come as a shock to you

Perhaps, but there's no need to act like politicians on the Atlas forum.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course, I would never expect you to seriously enter into a discussion on a specific policy, Phil. Politics, politics, politics.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course, I would never expect you to seriously enter into a discussion on a specific policy, Phil. Politics, politics, politics.

And the most predictable response goes to...!

I've been over this countless times but let me restate it for you since you have a hard time grasping this: I am here to discuss politics and process stories. I don't look at the Atlas Forum as the great sanctuary of policy debate. I can do that in the real world (we know why you can't). It's really cute that you view this place as the location to solve the policy problems of the world. More power to you. I and many others don't. Again, you perch yourself on that intellectual high horse when, quite frankly, you're the worst kind of faux intellectual. When your "points" fall flat (as is the case above: hilariously suggesting that the GOP platform hasn't been in the news after this controversy), you insist on restoring to your usual tactic: "Debate policy or else you're an idiot!"

The fact that you are dead wrong has nothing to do with my refusal to discuss policy with you here. Further proof that you're a joke.

If you don't want to discuss policies or how the parties deal with them (or how they deal with them when they are defended in the media vs. how they deal with them when they are merely proposed) you don't have to respond to people raising that point or inviting you into that particular conversation.

No one here is treating the Atlas forum as the place to solve problems in the world, but the notion that Atlas is supposed to be something of a sanctuary for broader forms of political debate isn't some crackpot theory I decided to come up with, the owner of the site has stated that was, among other things, part of his goal for the site when he created it.

Atlas can serve all comers, people who just like maps and polls, people who just like election returns, people who want to play simulation forum games, argue about music, or, like you, want the site to be more like Politico where we can discuss the gossipy gossip that gossips, no part of the site is dominant over the other but I don't get where you weird defensive hostility to anyone who tries to meld the policy with the political. If that's all you're into, God love you and keep you, but enter into a discussion without random unwarranted hostility totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

I was interested in why it is more offensive to see someone loudly arguing in defense of a policy and merely having a semantic issue with their approach, rather then the fact that Akin and others are just proposing the policy to begin with. The two are very closely linked, and to me I think it speaks of an interesting phenomenon where socially conservative policy is best implemented when there's very little fanfare made about it, but when mentioned, it gets round-the-house denouncements from the Republican side. The issue over vaginal probe clauses in abortion restriction proposal(s) in Virginia was a good example, chugging right along until someone decided to report on it, fell apart completely and everyone voting for it dropped it like a hot potato and pretended they had no idea what they were doing. (Which is offensive enough in it's own right.)

I was interested in the opinion of people who denounce Akin, yet have no underlying problem with the policy, and how oblivious I think that is to the actual issue at hand. I asked you and TJ because you and TJ are well known social conservatives on the site and I wanted insight. TJ provided some; it is very cynically political. Good to know. But I was still interested in outside viewpoint.

And this just in; there is nothing wrong with that type of discussion. If it's not your bag, no one requires you to participate. And if your response to someone looking to get into an issue is to just reflexively insult them, I think that speaks to greater issues you have than anything I've ever done. Large portions of this site, arguably the lion's share of it, is about political debate and discussion of individual public policy and philosophy. If you want to shout nerd alert toward people at random, there are numerous boards to do so.

And you know what? I've been reigned in twice by the mods with infractions. Only once was from being insulting to someone. You've been moderated many more times than two. Observationally speaking, perhaps the problem here isn't me.