Republicans should give up on abortion.

[RI]

(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.

[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.

[Person Man]

(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.

[RI]

(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.

[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.

[RI]

(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.

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.

(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.

If the truth is vile, why would it not be something that should be shown? As I said, until people know how awful it is, they won't do anything about it. Sometimes people need to be shocked into action.

[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.

[RI]

I support the repealing of Roe just as much as the fundies, but for very different reasons.  It's a losing battle on the federal level and just can't work.  It's one of those ambiguous issues that has no right answer, no matter how hard you believe one way.  There's always someone pulling equally hard on the other side because it's not fact, it's opinion.

I also support this position.

[Lunar]

(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.

That's a wonderful point.  Marrying the pro-life argument to religion means that areligious people will inevitably turned off.  Really, if anything, the pro-life argument is a merging of philosophy and science in attempt to settle when life wins.  The pro-choice movement is always going to be noticeably more arbitrary, even if there is no right answer.  But bringing in God this and the Bible that causes the pro-life people to project an arbitrary aura themselves, undermining perhaps the more logical parts of the argument

Palin being the image of pro-life (giving birth to a son she'd knew would be handicapped0 wasn't what turned most people off from her, but it's what got a lot of people super energized.  Palin denying cases of rape and incest probably did turn some people off though.

[Person Man]

(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.

That's a wonderful point.  Marrying the pro-life argument to religion means that areligious people will inevitably turned off.  Really, if anything, the pro-life argument is a merging of philosophy and science in attempt to settle when life wins.  The pro-choice movement is always going to be noticeably more arbitrary, even if there is no right answer.  But bringing in God this and the Bible that causes the pro-life people to project an arbitrary aura themselves, undermining perhaps the more logical parts of the argument

Palin being the image of pro-life (giving birth to a son she'd knew would be handicapped0 wasn't what turned most people off from her, but it's what got a lot of people super energized.  Palin denying cases of rape and incest probably did turn some people off though.

...and that's what could be a moral hazard with the anti-abortion movement. It is trying to arbitrize one of the most complicated mysteries in the universe....not that the pro-choice movement does, its just that it basis our bio-ethical code on a very basic and flimsy idea. Be afraid. Be very afraid. We simply can't allow this issue to ever be settled. It never has been settled...ever.

[Lunar]

Well my point was that the pro-life people have a less arbitrary argument but make it more arbitrary by inserting religious tenets into their argument, mitigating one of their largest advantages.  The pro-choice people have to choose an arbitrary point at when a fetus becomes a human, while the pro-life people do not.  But when you use your religion, the one correct one, which just happens to be what religion your parents subscribe too (aren't you lucky!), as the basis for your arguments, it could turn away people who would otherwise agree*.

It'd be interesting to see a secular outreach group in the pro-life movement.

*not trying to start an argument, but simply how religion diverts the argument away from the strongest aspect of the pro-life argument

[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.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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.

That is because fezzyfestoon is an anti religious person who wants to censor those who disagree. Why are you surprised?

[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.

[tmthforu94]

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... 

True. I am strongly against abortion. But I actually care about the future of our party and our nation, and I know that a moderate Republican is a better alternative to a Democrat.

[hcallega]

Though this isn't exactly what we were talking about, I think that another interesting aspect of the abortion debate is how it could be so different if only a few things had been different. The biggest differences is if Robert Kennedy had not been shot. He was pro-life and thus it is unlikely that we would see the massive shift towards the pro-choice position in the Democratic Party. I'm not saying that the Democrats would be the pro-life party (there would still be many pro-choice Dems like Humphrey and now Pelosi), but those who shifted their views to stay elected likely wouldn't have as the party would be more open to the pro-life view. Some examples are Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Bill Nelson, Dick Gephardt, Dick Durbin, Richard Daley, etc.

On the other side, with the Democratic Party being less pro-choice, we would likely see a more open GOP as well. That could mean Reagan as pro-choice (I don't know when he "converted though). Ford would have been more open about his views as well, as would Howard Baker and John Tower.

It's an interesting question/point of divergence, and worth talking about.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why should the Republicans give up on social issues? The problem with Libertarianism is that it possesses a fatal flaw even greater then that of Populism. That problem is that is policy of freedom from Gov't goes a long with a freedom from responsibility, but that leads to Gov't dependence and thus increases the size of Gov't and decreases freedom. Limited Gov't can only work when people are hard working and responsible. I am sorry if I am insulting my own generation but this is one the stupidest laziest, most irresponsible generations ever. I hope to god that it is case similar to that of the Counterculture where it is only a small 20 or 30 percent we see on TV and the rest form another "Silent Majority", but I fear that isn't the case this time due to the internet and other forms of instant communication. Many on hear say we heading towards Europe in terms of social permisiveness, why would you want such a thing. Am I the only one thats repulst by the 13 year old father in the UK(By the way I don't think he is the father, I think the 15 year old girl was rapped).

I think Social issues for now should not be tossed asside but they should take a back seat to the Economy.  In some cases they may intertwine like the "Octomom" in CA.

The next issue I want to address is the comparison between social issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage to Segregationism. The difference is that although segregationists tried to use the bible to defend there views, there is no moral basis for intentionally depriving a group of people the same rights as those that are given to others on the basis of color. Both sides in the Abortion debate claim that they are defended the rights of the weak and defenseless. I don't see this going away any time soon. Gay Marriage will be unlikely to go away cause I beleive that in ties into the collapse of the family leading to things like the Octo-mom and the 13 year old father which will become a bigger issue as stories like this continue to hit the news will create a backlash at least among those 35 and older and hopefully among sane young people. Republican party will miss out on a lot of really motivating issues like these mentioned. 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.

I agree that the GOP needs to speak to competence, fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, and thrift as opposed to the Dems desparate attempts to stimulate the same irresponsibility that got us into this mess in the first place. Only talking up social issues where it fits into that message. But tossing them aside and throwing them in the trash as National issues would be a big, big mistake.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Though this isn't exactly what we were talking about, I think that another interesting aspect of the abortion debate is how it could be so different if only a few things had been different. The biggest differences is if Robert Kennedy had not been shot. He was pro-life and thus it is unlikely that we would see the massive shift towards the pro-choice position in the Democratic Party. I'm not saying that the Democrats would be the pro-life party (there would still be many pro-choice Dems like Humphrey and now Pelosi), but those who shifted their views to stay elected likely wouldn't have as the party would be more open to the pro-life view. Some examples are Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Bill Nelson, Dick Gephardt, Dick Durbin, Richard Daley, etc.

On the other side, with the Democratic Party being less pro-choice, we would likely see a more open GOP as well. That could mean Reagan as pro-choice (I don't know when he "converted though). Ford would have been more open about his views as well, as would Howard Baker and John Tower.

It's an interesting question/point of divergence, and worth talking about.

Very interesting point and I have read you making it before. Its possible the South would be Democratic leaning not like it was prior to 1960 but like Jimmy Carter 1976. The Northeast would be Split with northern New England, NJ, DE, voting GOP and Southern NE, NY, and PA voting Dem. The Midwest would be the swing region and the West would be the GOP base. Basically the late 60's and 70's poltical alignments continuing till today. It would be interesting running a pro-life Ted Kennedy against a Pro-Choice Reagan in 1980.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Smash255]

Why should the Republicans give up on social issues? The problem with Libertarianism is that it possesses a fatal flaw even greater then that of Populism. That problem is that is policy of freedom from Gov't goes a long with a freedom from responsibility, but that leads to Gov't dependence and thus increases the size of Gov't and decreases freedom. Limited Gov't can only work when people are hard working and responsible. I am sorry if I am insulting my own generation but this is one the stupidest laziest, most irresponsible generations ever. I hope to god that it is case similar to that of the Counterculture where it is only a small 20 or 30 percent we see on TV and the rest form another "Silent Majority", but I fear that isn't the case this time due to the internet and other forms of instant communication. Many on hear say we heading towards Europe in terms of social permisiveness, why would you want such a thing. Am I the only one thats repulst by the 13 year old father in the UK(By the way I don't think he is the father, I think the 15 year old girl was rapped).

I think Social issues for now should not be tossed asside but they should take a back seat to the Economy.  In some cases they may intertwine like the "Octomom" in CA.

The next issue I want to address is the comparison between social issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage to Segregationism. The difference is that although segregationists tried to use the bible to defend there views, there is no moral basis for intentionally depriving a group of people the same rights as those that are given to others on the basis of color. Both sides in the Abortion debate claim that they are defended the rights of the weak and defenseless. I don't see this going away any time soon. Gay Marriage will be unlikely to go away cause I beleive that in ties into the collapse of the family leading to things like the Octo-mom and the 13 year old father which will become a bigger issue as stories like this continue to hit the news will create a backlash at least among those 35 and older and hopefully among sane young people. Republican party will miss out on a lot of really motivating issues like these mentioned. 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.

I agree that the GOP needs to speak to competence, fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, and thrift as opposed to the Dems desparate attempts to stimulate the same irresponsibility that got us into this mess in the first place. Only talking up social issues where it fits into that message. But tossing them aside and throwing them in the trash as National issues would be a big, big mistake.

Spending money on creating jobs is not what got us into this mess...


Anyway the whole thing on Gay Marriage and then tying that into the 13 year old father and the crazy lady with all the kids is pure absurdity.   That whole mindset if you allow gay marriage all this crazy crap will be viewed as more acceptable or any of that nonsense has really hurt the GOP among moderates (even those who are against Gay Marriage themselves). & it basically makes the GOP look like a complete and utter joke to anyone under the age of 30.   I'm not even suggesting the GOP should drop the opposition they have to Gay Marriage, however the rhetoric is so over the top, so insane, and in some cases so utterly hateful it just makes them appear as complete and utter jokes, and not only to people who favor Gay Marriage.

[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.