Republicans should give up on abortion.

[Franzl]

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

[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!"

[Franzl]

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!"

Look, you're putting words in my mouth here...but I think it's widely accepted and noticed that you get into quite a few nasty debates on social issues.

I'm not even trying to imply who might be at fault in any of those cases.

[RI]

Actually, from an objective standpoint, I think the Republican Party would be smarter to give up on gay rights rather than abortion.  

I've looked at several polls which suggest that there is high support for gay rights among Gen X and Gen Y -- more so than with boomers and way more than with senior citizens.  Clearly the change is coming and the Republican Party would be wise to get ahead of the curve.  Failing to do so makes them look out of touch and backward.  In the future we will be able to remind those voters that the GOP was very slow on the issue.

I have not seen a similar trend regarding abortion rights.  It is as controversial among Gen X and Gen Y as it was among our elders, suggesting there will be pro-life base in the future.

I completely agree with this.

[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!"

Look, you're putting words in my mouth here...but I think it's widely accepted and noticed that you get into quite a few nasty debates on social issues.

I'm not even trying to imply who might be at fault in any of those cases.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You're quite clearly saying, "Look, you get into fights, it's no coincidence, it's your fault."

Next time, read through the thread. Read who I am fighting with. I'm sure Fezzy's "you spelled something wrong and I'm tired of it!" and "I'm tired of your bitching" was perfectly appropriate to our discussion.

I came here, had a good conversation with two posters (one of which I hardly ever agee with) and then Fezzy pops in, starts his usual nonsense and, in his typical fashion, blames me for starting a fight when things don't go his way. He actually said that everything was "civil and political" before I arrived. Uh...I was here before he was and had a perfectly civil, political conversation.

I expect better from you than to jump onto the "Phil is the scapegoat" bandwagon. And don't tell me that you're not determining whose fault it is. "Why is every debate a fight between Phil and some random person?" Come on, dude. The blame was put on me.

[Franzl]

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!"

Look, you're putting words in my mouth here...but I think it's widely accepted and noticed that you get into quite a few nasty debates on social issues.

I'm not even trying to imply who might be at fault in any of those cases.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You're quite clearly saying, "Look, you get into fights, it's no coincidence, it's your fault."

Next time, read through the thread. Read who I am fighting with. I'm sure Fezzy's "you spelled something wrong and I'm tired of it!" and "I'm tired of your bitching" was perfectly appropriate to our discussion.

I came here, had a good conversation with two posters (one of which I hardly ever agee with) and then Fezzy pops in, starts his usual nonsense and, in his typical fashion, blames me for starting a fight when things don't go his way. He actually said that everything was "civil and political" before I arrived. Uh...I was here before he was and had a perfectly civil, political conversation.

I expect better from you than to jump onto the "Phil is the scapegoat" bandwagon. And don't tell me that you're not determining whose fault it is. "Why is every debate a fight between Phil and some random person?" Come on, dude. The blame was put on me.

That's fine, Phil, and personally, I never get into this kind of nasty debate with you....we also get along just fine.

I do wonder, however, WHY there are so many problems with others concerning social issues.

I'm not attacking you...I'm just hoping you might realize there's a small problem...if you and only you get into all these arguments. Are you denying that you get into far more "fights" than average?

Even if some or even the majority aren't your fault....still...WHY does it always evolve into that? That's basically my question.

Seems like it could be avoided quite often, regardless of who is ultimately at fault.

[jamestroll]

Phil is a dangerous gop extremist, in the mold of Inhofe, DeMint, George Wallace, and Coburn.

[RI]

Phil is a dangerous gop extremist, in the mold of Inhofe, DeMint, George Wallace, and Coburn.

Trolling will not make this better.

[Keystone Phil]

I do wonder, however, WHY there are so many problems with others concerning social issues.

Take a look at who I have to deal with. I don't mind it. I don't mind the discussion. What I do mind is when what I value is laughed off. What I do mind is being told by a few members that I a) don't stand by what I believe and when I "have" to, I throw a fit (I love that one. If I didn't stand by what I believe, why would we be having these discussions?) and b) when I do stand by my beliefs, it's known only as "bitching." What I do mind is having a discussion turn into a visit by the grammar/spelling police (like when Fezzy was clearly so frustrated that he had to let his anger out by pointing out a spelling error that has been bothering him).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you still say that you're not casting blame. You're not looking through anything else in this thread. And you're totally naive if you think that I'm the only one that gets into arguments.

This is a political forum, my friend. I keep it to the issues. If you can't take it, leave. What I don't like is when people get arrogant, when people basically tell me that what I take seriously is "unimportant" and a "waste of time." That makes it personal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then try blaming others, too, and stop acting impartial. "Why is it always a problem with Phil and random others?" That's the most loaded question I've seen in awhile.

If you're entertaining that a majority of this might not be my fault, why wasn't there a bit of defense on my behalf? I'm not saying that I want or need it but, again, don't act like this is you staying neutral when you're focusing on one "problem person."

[JWHart]

Actually, from an objective standpoint, I think the Republican Party would be smarter to give up on gay rights rather than abortion.  

I've looked at several polls which suggest that there is high support for gay rights among Gen X and Gen Y -- more so than with boomers and way more than with senior citizens.  Clearly the change is coming and the Republican Party would be wise to get ahead of the curve.  Failing to do so makes them look out of touch and backward.  In the future we will be able to remind those voters that the GOP was very slow on the issue.

I have not seen a similar trend regarding abortion rights.  It is as controversial among Gen X and Gen Y as it was among our elders, suggesting there will be pro-life base in the future.

This would help, but based on demographics what the GOP really needs to "give up" is the hard-line stance on immigration. Latinos, IIRC, are the past-growing population in the country, live in the fastest-growing states, and tend to be socially, and sometimes fiscally, conservative. Whether Republicans can ditch the nativists or not will determine whether the southwest votes like Texas or California in ten years.

Ironically, this was one issue that I felt Bush got right, both morally and politically, and of course the base had to go and buck him for pretty much the first time ever.

[Franzl]

I do wonder, however, WHY there are so many problems with others concerning social issues.

Take a look at who I have to deal with. I don't mind it. I don't mind the discussion. What I do mind is when what I value is laughed off. What I do mind is being told by a few members that I a) don't stand by what I believe and when I "have" to, I throw a fit (I love that one. If I didn't stand by what I believe, why would we be having these discussions?) and b) when I do stand by my beliefs, it's known only as "bitching." What I do mind is having a discussion turn into a visit by the grammar/spelling police (like when Fezzy was clearly so frustrated that he had to let his anger out by pointing out a spelling error that has been bothering him).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you still say that you're not casting blame. You're not looking through anything else in this thread. And you're totally naive if you think that I'm the only one that gets into arguments.

This is a political forum, my friend. I keep it to the issues. If you can't take it, leave. What I don't like is when people get arrogant, when people basically tell me that what I take seriously is "unimportant" and a "waste of time." That makes it personal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then try blaming others, too, and stop acting impartial. "Why is it always a problem with Phil and random others?" That's the most loaded question I've seen in awhile.

If you're entertaining that a majority of this might not be my fault, why wasn't there a bit of defense on my behalf? I'm not saying that I want or need it but, again, don't act like this is you staying neutral when you're focusing on one "problem person."

Look, I'm done here. Let's forget this conversation took place. I have read this entire thread, Phil, it's not like I didn't bother to read it.

I have no interest in pursuing this further.

[RI]

Actually, from an objective standpoint, I think the Republican Party would be smarter to give up on gay rights rather than abortion.  

I've looked at several polls which suggest that there is high support for gay rights among Gen X and Gen Y -- more so than with boomers and way more than with senior citizens.  Clearly the change is coming and the Republican Party would be wise to get ahead of the curve.  Failing to do so makes them look out of touch and backward.  In the future we will be able to remind those voters that the GOP was very slow on the issue.

I have not seen a similar trend regarding abortion rights.  It is as controversial among Gen X and Gen Y as it was among our elders, suggesting there will be pro-life base in the future.

This would help, but based on demographics what the GOP really needs to "give up" is the hard-line stance on immigration. Latinos, IIRC, are the past-growing population in the country, live in the fastest-growing states, and tend to be socially, and sometimes fiscally, conservative. Whether Republicans can ditch the nativists or not will determine whether the southwest votes like Texas or California in ten years.

Ironically, this was one issue that I felt Bush got right, both morally and politically, and of course the base had to go and buck him for pretty much the first time ever.

One of the best things that the Republican party can do going forward to make itself competitive, if not dominant, again is to rid itself of its image as a white nationalist party. They must find a way to incorporate minorities into their voting bloc, or they will fail. The two most obvious potential allies are hispanics, who are largely socially conservative, and Asians, who are largely economically conservative. Hispanics comprise a much larger portion of the electorate, so more of a focus should be placed on them. If they can find a way to severely cut into the percentage of hispanic votes that go to the Dems or even win the majority of hispanic votes, then they can secure Texas and Arizona, in addition to winning back New Mexico and Nevada. They could even be potentially close to competitive in California.

In order for this to happen though, the Republicans MUST change their immigration stances, and that will not be easy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know I am getting sick of having my views labeled as natavist just because I beleive the law is the law and that we should not give amnesty. I am not a natavist becasue I am a firm supporter of Immigration and I don't focus on specific group. Some of my best friends are hispanic and I am a firm supported of South American Democracy and think we need to lock arms with Columbia as a deterant to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. What we need to do is silence the real natavists and push them away and work to convince Hispanic, Asians etc that our opposition to amnesty doesn't mean we are opposed to Immigration. The media is not going to help us win over these groups just because we change our position, they will find another issue to try and hurt our efforts so we shouldn't try that route. We need to reach out directly to these groups. I am a firm supporter of reaching out to Asians and Hispanics as a way to make CA competative again and lock down TX,FL,AZ,. Not too mention regain NC, NV, CO, and NM.

Fezzy to respond to your earlier post responding to me. You agreed the base felt angry and antagonized, so would it be wise to antagonise an already mistrustful group on a whole other set of issues?

[Keystone Phil]

I really think the only way to fight back is have a long term urban plan. 

Amen to that.

[pbrower2a]

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.

The best way in which to reduce abortion is to create a culture of optimism -- a culture that used to exist but has disappeared. Economic realities were getting harsher, not better, eight years ago.

I think that you have it right about reviving the GOP -- that the GOP must try to win the center even if it must dampen the enthusiasm of the Base.  When the GOP had such members as Jacob Javits, Edmund Brooke, Charles Percy, George Romney, and Hugh Scott it could make inroads into liberal-leaning areas. Would the Democrats have done so well if they had served only the gun-banners, the welfare fanatics, and the environmental extremists? I don't think so.

Perhaps the base is happier with what remains of the GOP than it used to be, but that happiness comes at a price, namely that the Party is hemorrhaging voters and turning off the rest of us. The teenage activists of our time who become the rising stars of politics twenty years from now are largely Democrats... and twenty years from now the Democrats are likely to have plenty of young politicians approaching 40 wielding great talent. Some will have gotten law degrees and will have found the lure of elected politics irresistible; most of the Democratic campaigners of the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012 will be Democrats. There may seem to be safe havens for the GOP, but that at best assumes that the GOP will become a Party of hard-core ideologues in narrow regions. It is not enough that a few people be wildly-happy about their parties; even the Commies could rely upon the enthusiasm of members even if they were in disrepute among 98% or more of the electorate.   

[retromike22]

Here's an interview with Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who attracted some attention for favoring gay civil unions.  In this interview he talks about how having more moderate positions on social issues can bring the Republicans back.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19181.html

Here's a excerpt:

Q: You've changed your position on gay rights. [Huntsman recently endorsed civil union legislation which would grant identical marriage rights to same-sex couples.] What prompted that?

HUNTSMAN: Well, I've always been in favor of greater equality. My first year in office I ran a reciprocal beneficiary rights piece of legislation. It failed, but my first year in office I wanted to see if we could do more in the name of individual rights. And I've always thought that we were a little bit behind in terms of equality for people born under the same constitution.

Q: In December you talked about people 40 and under having a very different view on the environment. Is there a similar generational gap on gay rights?

HUNTSMAN: You hit on the two issues that I think carry more of a generational component than anything else. And I would liken it a bit to the transformation of the Tory Party in the UK. They went two or three election cycles without recognizing the issues that the younger citizens in the UK really felt strongly about. They were a very narrow party of angry people. And they started branching out through, maybe, taking a second look at the issues of the day, much like we're going to have to do for the Republican Party, to reconnect with the youth, to reconnect with people of color, to reconnect with different geographies that we have lost.

[Keystone Phil]

So basically, he said we need be more than a party of cranky, naysayers and reach out to young voters by rethinking the general position on gay rights and the environment (when plenty of people in the party already share Huntsman's mainstream position on those issues).

Is that really being socially moderate? I already hold Huntsman's positions on those issues and I'd say that I'm a standard social conservative.

[retromike22]

What do the Republicans on this board think about your chairman Michael Steele's comments that abortion is an "individual choice"?

[War on Want]

I think it is funny Republicans think they can win Latinos based on abortion alone. That is just stupid, they are only going the trend back to you based on economic issues. The Democrats are still pretty Catholic friendly and there is lots of appeal towards Latinos.

[Zarn]

Demographics change.

Anyway, this thread, like other threads, is pretty sad. Let's see what I can do to help.

The only reason I'm registered Republican rather than Libertarian is that the Libertarian party is Pro-choice. My argument is not religious or spiritual, but scientific.

The religious argument does not apply to all people, inlcuding many religious people. It is a clear hindrance to the cause.

I believe everyone has the right to life. That's why I even oppose capital punishment. To me, no other right has power over it.

I feel the biggest obstacle; however, is that people simply see this as a women's issue. As long as that label remains, it will never again become a popular argument. I have been accused of sexism for my stance, despite the fact that I'm pissed off at the wage imbalance between the sexes, I encourage both women and men to not let anyone make them feel inferior, and I call people out on blantant sexist comments (no matter their sex).

[Franzl]

I agree completely with Zarn.

[Governor PiT]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

[Franzl]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

[Zarn]

I agree. I would apply the same to homosexual marriage.

[Sbane]

I agree. I would apply the same to homosexual marriage.

What are your views on that?