Republicans should give up on abortion.

[Keystone Phil]

I'll give you a call when I decide to give up on something I fundamentally believe in because it would help me just a bit with some voters. Don't expect to hear from me soon. Lou and Grace didn't teach me to just give up because something isn't popular enough.

By the way, this is coming from someone who isn't a single issue voter/has voted for and strongly supported Pro Choice candidates.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, Republicans should lighten up on abortion. For now, it should fade into the background. Maybe if we get a big lead in congress sometime, and have a Republican President, we can bring it up again. But for now, it is only alienating important voters.

Very interesting considering one of the images in your signature. Then again, I guess I should consider the other image in your signature and understand that opportunism is fairly common... 

[Keystone Phil]

Kind of like running for Senate in Pennsylvania when living conveniently close to DC in Virginia.  That's quite an opportunity.

...

Which is what almost every Senator does. God forbid the man be near his family!

I love how some of the biggest Santorum critics even conceded that that was a silly point to ever use against him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...so give up on two issues (especially the first) that will basically alienate a large chunk of our base. That...uh...makes sense, I guess...

By the way, I love the buzzwords used on issues that people don't like discussing like "alienate." Right, as if taking a stand on other issues won't "alienate" people that disagree with us.

[Keystone Phil]

See, isn't it annoying to have to constantly defend someone against idiotic assertions?

Haha, ok, we won't go down that road. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Some of us consider an issue that deals with life to be above just the state level. I don't care what your personal position is on the issue; just realize why some of us think it's a national issue.

Opposition to the war wasn't popular for the Dems but it was the right thing, in their opinion. Looks like it paid off.

I'm very sorry that we have some people in this party that now want to drop any issue that isn't popular enough. And then we wonder why we have so few real leaders these days...

I love your double standards, too. Apparently, being Pro Life and against gay marriage is now "offensive" to people outside of our base. Interesting. Now let's take your route and go super libertarian on economics. Let's just focus on that. After all, according to the elite, that's all that's "important"/worth your time. Yeah, let's really re-establish those stereotypes about the Rich Republicans. That won't turn people off.

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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?

LOL @ the idea that we lost because of social conservatism in 2006.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry that you're that naive.

Yeah, people voted on the war. Last time I checked, that's not fully denouncing an ideology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...or determined to stand up for what people strongly believe. Civil rights in the south wasn't popular and the Dems stood by that. It took them quite awhile to recover from that but they stuck to it and ended up just fine.

I really find no need to continue this because you personally enjoy abortion or at least enjoy mocking the Pro Life movement every single chance that you get. Don't deny it either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They weren't thrown into panic by a party. Maybe you don't remember the headlines from those early October days. The Dems didn't have to do force the issue at all. It was there, people saw it, people didn't care to have a substantive debate on how to solve the issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And like I told the other naive ones (again, I have no problem being arrogant with arrogant people that mock what I stand for), you shed social conservatism and you lose a lot of voters. It just so happens that people here a) don't care about social conservatism at all so losing those voters won't matter or b) are far left wing Dem hacks that want to throw bombs at social conservatism and really don't care if we lose voters over it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I really don't think that the base turned out. McCain's campaign struggled with GOTV. If we had a team in place that turned people out in droves like they did in 2004, we wouldn't have lost Indiana or North Carolina and probably could have won Florida and the Congressional district in Nebraska.

I'm not saying that we wouldn't have still lost but it wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

[Keystone Phil]

I mean, even folks to your right don't think its a good idea to push abortion when you don't have the credibility on issues that are of more immediate import.

Good for them.

I'm not saying that this has to be our top issue or anything but I'm not just going to support a "We really don't care about this. Do whatever" platform on this issue and people here are really foolish if they think that that would end up producing a net gain for us in support. We'd lose tons of voters and changing our position on that issue alone is not enough to gain a lot of support.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, just do what the Ds have done on gun control. Still have it in the platform, but have a big tent on the issue and don't bring it up as often.

I've stated enough times that I don't mind Pro Choice Republicans. I worked my ass off for one in 2004. However, I'm not going to just shut up about the issue/"don't bring it up as often" when I feel that it needs to be discussed.

[Keystone Phil]

....and you can also take the advice from Smid and not try to demonize the opposition on the issue.

...

I don't know what isn't clear about my statement saying that I not only have no problem supporting Pro Choice candidates but that I actually worked for one in 2004.

[Keystone Phil]

I know...but you have been quite hateful when dealing with some pro-choicers on this site....they were probably hateful...or at least offensive, too... but we all have to agree to stop.

I haven't been "hateful." I speak up for what I believe. I may get "combative" when certain Pro Choicers get condescending and arrogant, tell me that I'm backwards, etc.

[Keystone Phil]

(Speaking only from my experience here)

I consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I would not say 'pro-life'. To me, the pro-life movement is not something that I would want to be associated with, despite the fact that I mostly agree with them. I believe that their problem is that the have become too militant, too fringe, too 'out-there'. They are dominated by religious fundamentalists who bring up God almost every other word. The more I hear a pro-lifer talk, the more I want to run as far away from them as possible. Their current tactics will never get them where they want to go, as basically, they have a massive PR problem.

If the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is to be successful, they must separate themselves from their religious arguments. They can still have them, but that must not be the message that they focus on most. I find that the most effective thing is that a pro-lifer can do is to appeal to emotion. Use images and videos of abortions instead of droning on about God. Show them what abortions are like. Show them images of the dead fetuses. Show them why they should be illegal.

It's the old author's rule: SHOW, don't tell.

Oddly enough, I agree that focusing just on the religious aspect turns people off but I'm also some who wants us to steer clear of using images of aborted fetuses during public demonstration. I agree with the point and I hate how many Pro Choicers complain about how "wrong" the images are, as if it's the fault of a Pro Lifer. However, I think there's a time and a place for that sort of stuff. They're inappropriate in demonstrations but I do believe that they should be shared with people privately.

[Keystone Phil]

(Speaking only from my experience here)

I consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I would not say 'pro-life'. To me, the pro-life movement is not something that I would want to be associated with, despite the fact that I mostly agree with them. I believe that their problem is that the have become too militant, too fringe, too 'out-there'. They are dominated by religious fundamentalists who bring up God almost every other word. The more I hear a pro-lifer talk, the more I want to run as far away from them as possible. Their current tactics will never get them where they want to go, as basically, they have a massive PR problem.

If the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is to be successful, they must separate themselves from their religious arguments. They can still have them, but that must not be the message that they focus on most. I find that the most effective thing is that a pro-lifer can do is to appeal to emotion. Use images and videos of abortions instead of droning on about God. Show them what abortions are like. Show them images of the dead fetuses. Show them why they should be illegal.

It's the old author's rule: SHOW, don't tell.

Oddly enough, I agree that focusing just on the religious aspect turns people off but I'm also some who wants us to steer clear of using images of aborted fetuses during public demonstration. I agree with the point and I hate how many Pro Choicers complain about how "wrong" the images are, as if it's the fault of a Pro Lifer. However, I think there's a time and a place for that sort of stuff. They're inappropriate in demonstrations but I do believe that they should be shared with people privately.

It seems to me like it become rather easy to talk about the issue in hypothetical terms, without any consideration of the actual nature of abortion. I am sure that if more people saw the actual damage, that most would be outraged. Putting personal faces and images and stories to the issue can make all the difference. Until we see exactly what we are losing, we will never know how important it is the protect.

I totally agree but I think we'd be doing ourselves a big favor if we didn't put them up during protests.

[Keystone Phil]

I suppose you are right about that. Nevertheless, the images have to be shown somehow. They are the single, most powerful weapon that the anti-abortion/pro-life movement has.

As I said, it absolutely ought to be done but done so privately.

[Keystone Phil]

We lost in 2006 and 2008 because we betrayed our real base.  Our "base", the fundamentalists hijacked our message and twisted it into their own freakish political agenda and we allowed it because the means justify the ends.  Unfortunately Bush was the means and he took us to a very different ends.  We lost our credibility in fact-based responsible governance.  That's what our base supports and we haven't actually acted upon those principles in years.  That's why we lost.  Our message was destroyed and turned into a vehicle for the Baptists' social crusade.

Dude, get real. We lost in 2006 because of Iraq. Sure, the base wasn't motivated because of fiscal betrayal as well but that's not what cost us Congress.

I love the use of the word "fundamentalist." It's your code for social conservatives. You want to isolate us and still expect to win? That's incredibly naive.

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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?

[Keystone Phil]

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

You're being a pain in the ass.

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!

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.

While Fezzy(I am sorry to call you out) being barely a Republican himself may feel we pandered too much to the base, the base feels betrayed and abandoned by out of control spending and a national party that until recently didn't care that much. Some issues will play with both the base and Independents. Some Indies left the GOP because of spending, the war, and corruption. Well the war is a dead issue with Obama in office, the GOP is now on there side on the spending, and the Dems are now doing everything they can to cede the Corruption issue to the GOP.

That's fine, but be careful not to think of me as what Phil has made me out to be.  His version of me is very different than what I actually am.  I am looking for the success of the Party in my suggestions, not the perfect party for myself.  That idea died a long time ago.  I completely agree with you in that our actual base felt betrayed and doesn't trust us anymore.  What the Republican Party stood for was disturbingly absent the last 8 years.  That's why we lost, because the Republican Party wasn't ours.  There was nothing to stand for because it didn't stand for what we believed.  It still doesn't for the most part.  So the most important steps to take right now are to get back on our responsible governance message and start trying to get our members back.  The best way to do that is to ditch the stuff the people who left didn't like in the first place.  Now that they're gone, getting back on message isn't going to be enough to attract them back.  We have to make concessions and the most dead end and polarizing issues should go first.  Those issues are gay marriage and abortion.

You obviously don't care about the party if you plan on cutting out our social base. It's beyond assinine.

There are obviously polarizing economic issues as well but that's not a problem to the man who only cares about economics/thinks anything else is "unimportant" and a waste of time. This is just about you, not about the party.

[Keystone Phil]

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 just mocked me for shying away from "too thinky" subjects. This is where you play all innocent and act like you weren't bomb throwing.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fezzy has made it quite clear that he finds them to be "unimportant" and wants them cut out.

It's only natural for a social conservative like myself to be annoyed with someone telling us how "unimportant" are concerns are and how we're basically a waste of time.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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?

[Keystone Phil]

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 come in here, throw bombs about how you haven't really seen me discuss anything other than social issues (this is a lot like your other trolling about how I'm not one to have substantive discussions and how I'm not really a social conservative), basically imply that I'm stupid for not discussing the "thinky" issues and now you want to whine about someone else having a problem?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Actually, I know of at least one person you listed that would support social conservatives being dismissed in every possible way but those people aren't the topic here.

Fezzy has been nothing less than a condescending voice against social conservatives every step of the way. He feels that we are a waste of time and our causes are unimportant. That's someone who doesn't want social conservatism in their party. I'm not going to say this again.

You obviously don't care about the party if you plan on cutting out our social base. It's beyond assinine.

There are obviously polarizing economic issues as well but that's not a problem to the man who only cares about economics/thinks anything else is "unimportant" and a waste of time. This is just about you, not about the party.

And this is all personal, not about politics.

I'd like it very much if you would stop spreading rumors and lies about me.  I like people to judge my politics for what they are and not for what is more convenient for you to battle.

And speaking of the "double standards" you always pretend I hold, why is it that I have to prove my political positions on a daily basis but the SECOND someone even hints at challenging the almighty Phil's positions, it's the end of the world.  GET OVER YOURSELF.  You don't own the forum!

LOL

What? I act like I own the forum because someone is being a troll, basically demanding that I prove to him that I'm an economic conservative? Were you here when this joke told me that he's never seen me have a substantive discussion? How about when he said I'm not really a Republican?

I never asked you to prove your political positions. I stand by everything I believe in and have never had a problem defending it. I do have a problem when someone trolls and says that I'm not really an economic conservative until I prove it to him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

And I have to get over myself?

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, not everything has to turn into a cussing, bitter, angry, intense fight.  It's not always the other guy's fault either (otherwise it'd happen at least as tenth as much to other people on this forum) although I have seen cases where it is absolutely the other guy's fault.  Not passing a judgment in this thread.  Perhaps some time for reflection for a couple people involved.  Peace out.

And, like usual, your "fairness" lecture is directed towards one person...and I'm then told that you're not "passing judgement."

[Keystone Phil]

The conversation, as usual, was civil and political before you showed up.  Notice how no one else has a problem with each other...

Dude, I was here before you were. I was discussing things just fine. In fact, Angry Weasel, RealistIdealist and I had a very substantive, very mature conversation and now you want to play the childish blame game?

You're pathetic, dude. Honestly. You can't hold your own and then run away at the end, saying how I'm not getting along with the other kids. In reality, if you actually through the thread, you'd see the number of times I agreed and respectfully disagreed with others.

I've lectured other people at different times, including trying to get px75 to be less ridiculous just today and defending you on other days.  But you can be defensive whatevs.  Just trying to create a more reasonable tone at this particular moment.

"What's your problem, Px?"

That's all you said. But I don't care. I don't need your defense so don't act like you're doing me some favor. I can hold my own. Thanks though.

[Keystone Phil]

Fezzy needs to get reaquainted with the facts so these are for him...

(Speaking only from my experience here)

I consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I would not say 'pro-life'. To me, the pro-life movement is not something that I would want to be associated with, despite the fact that I mostly agree with them. I believe that their problem is that the have become too militant, too fringe, too 'out-there'. They are dominated by religious fundamentalists who bring up God almost every other word. The more I hear a pro-lifer talk, the more I want to run as far away from them as possible. Their current tactics will never get them where they want to go, as basically, they have a massive PR problem.

If the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is to be successful, they must separate themselves from their religious arguments. They can still have them, but that must not be the message that they focus on most. I find that the most effective thing is that a pro-lifer can do is to appeal to emotion. Use images and videos of abortions instead of droning on about God. Show them what abortions are like. Show them images of the dead fetuses. Show them why they should be illegal.

It's the old author's rule: SHOW, don't tell.

Oddly enough, I agree that focusing just on the religious aspect turns people off but I'm also some who wants us to steer clear of using images of aborted fetuses during public demonstration. I agree with the point and I hate how many Pro Choicers complain about how "wrong" the images are, as if it's the fault of a Pro Lifer. However, I think there's a time and a place for that sort of stuff. They're inappropriate in demonstrations but I do believe that they should be shared with people privately.

Thank you, Phil...that sounds really smart. I mean, I wouldn't expect anyone to campaign against gay marriage by showing pictures of butt sex....would you?

So, yeah...vile demonstrations of aborted fetuses are pretty bad...almost as bad as turning your leaders into full-time priests. What I would do if I were an anti-abortionist would be to focus on the objective short-fallings of abortion in terms of the ethical problems it would create and how you could still get the benefits of the pro-choice movement while still be able to prosecute abortion doctors.

I suppose you are right about that. Nevertheless, the images have to be shown somehow. They are the single, most powerful weapon that the anti-abortion/pro-life movement has.

Ouch! Such a brutally nasty conversation because of mean old Phil! It wasn't political either apparently.

Oh, I love how Fezzy wants to lecture me about civility when the kid actually went nuts over a spelling error of mine. Good times.

[Keystone Phil]

If bitching about not "giving up on your views" and taking a cheap shot at someone are substantial conversation, then sure.  But go ahead, keep practicing for your future in politics.  You're doing a good job at the manipulation game!  Maybe someday the person you've created in my place will actually exist and you'll be able to have the argument you've always longed for.  Until then, just grow up.

And I'm the child? "Bitching about not giving up your views." That's what this is? This is my problem with so many of you people - I get told that I don't defend my positions and whine when I'm forced to do so and then when I prove that I do it, I'm "bitching."

The posts I bumped make it quite clear that I had a substantive conversation. You're ignoring them. You lose and you turn everything into "keep practicing for your future in politics." Look who sounds political, running away from the topic!

Sorry that I'm practicing for my future, Fezzy. Mommy and Daddy don't have an large estate to turn over to me someday so, yeah, I actually have to work for what I get. Such a silly idea, I know. And to think that I don't drive around in a Benz! How ever do I survive?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've discussed politics, my friend. You made this personal and you always have. You call us out, you say we're people focused on unimportant things and when someone takes a stand against you, you throw a fit.

I really don't have any personal issues with you, dude...that is, until you start playing this game every once in awhile. You dismiss my defense of my values as "bitching," you mock me for a spelling error...come on. Get real.

[Keystone Phil]

Why do so many discussions have to turn into a personal battle between Phil and some random poster?

As if it wasn't stated enough. We really need more people (who aren't even involved in the conversation) to basically say, "Phil's starting a fight!"