Republicans should give up on abortion.

[RI]

Can you two take it somewhere else? Please?

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

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

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

...

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

No one is talking about dismissing social conservatives!

[JWHart]

And for those who believe that this will doom the Republican party because the 28% of them who don't want to permit abortions will not vote (the social base)...... the poll shows that 21% of DEMOCRATS believe that abortion should not be permitted.  But they still vote Democrat.... possibly because they view the party's stance on fiscal and economic issues to be more important. Which is what the Republicans should do.

Are we sure about that? I looked at the poll in question, but I didn't see how it defined party -- is it by registration? Self-identification?

The point being, there are a lot of "Democrats", especially in the South, that haven't voted for a national Democratic candidate in years. They might vote for local Dems, but those Dems are likely to be pro-life. So, I'm not convinced this argument holds up.

[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?

[JWHart]

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.

I think Phil's right (won't say that often). Note that national turnout in 2008 barely increased over 2004, despite the Democrats running possibly the largest GOTV operation in history. Clearly, conservative turnout declined compared to '04. I believe local data backs this up, though I'd need to research the numbers. Some of that can be chalked up to "we're going to lose, why bother?", but probably not all of it.

I'd also note that based on the field information I saw at 538 (I know some will consider this a biased source) McCain was getting absolutely destroyed in ground game until Palin was added to the ticket. (Afterwords they were still outnumbered, but competetive.)

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

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

Was that clear enough?
[/quote]

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

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

[bhouston79]

And for those who believe that this will doom the Republican party because the 28% of them who don't want to permit abortions will not vote (the social base)...... the poll shows that 21% of DEMOCRATS believe that abortion should not be permitted.  But they still vote Democrat.... possibly because they view the party's stance on fiscal and economic issues to be more important. Which is what the Republicans should do.

Well this statistic is a little bit misleading since many of the 21% people identifying as Democrats and "pro-life" tend to vote Democratic in state and local elections, but Republican in national elections, especially at the Presidential level.  Personally, I think that the GOP is in a catch 22 with regard to the abortion issue.  The issue really harms them among moderate voters in swing states, but if they ever abandon both the abortion and the gay marriage plank in order to appeal to moderates in the swing states, look for some culturally conservative states like Arkansas, West Virginia, and Kentucky to start coming back home to the Democratic party.

[JWHart]

And for those who believe that this will doom the Republican party because the 28% of them who don't want to permit abortions will not vote (the social base)...... the poll shows that 21% of DEMOCRATS believe that abortion should not be permitted.  But they still vote Democrat.... possibly because they view the party's stance on fiscal and economic issues to be more important. Which is what the Republicans should do.

Well this statistic is a little bit misleading since many of the 21% people identifying as Democrats and "pro-life" tend to vote Democratic in state and local elections, but Republican in national elections, especially at the Presidential level.  Personally, I think that the GOP is in a catch 22 with regard to the abortion issue.  The issue really harms them among moderate voters in swing states, but if they ever abandon both the abortion and the gay marriage plank in order to appeal to moderates in the swing states, look for some culturally conservative states like Arkansas, West Virginia, and Kentucky to start coming back home to the Democratic party.

^^^this

Besides, it seems to me that the Christian Right is to Republicans what unions are to the Democrats -- you don't court them for the raw votes, you court them for the number of phone-banking, small-donating, knocking-on-doors-in-subzero-weather fanatical volunteers they can produce.

[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?

[Lunar]

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.

[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."

[Lunar]

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.

[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.

[Lunar]

To no one in particular:

BITCH I CUT YOU

[Person Man]

Can I just piss and crap on a random person since Phil among others are being dicks?

[Ogre Mage]

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.

[Lunar]

Older people vote HELLA more than younger people.  I don't think it's smartest just to model your party platform on what 18-40 year olds want the most...

[Smash255]

Older people vote HELLA more than younger people.  I don't think it's smartest just to model your party platform on what 18-40 year olds want the most...

I don't think he is suggesting that they should come out and become the Pro Gay Rights party, but just take a more low key approach to it, instead of being the militant anti gay rights party.

[Ogre Mage]

Older people vote HELLA more than younger people.  I don't think it's smartest just to model your party platform on what 18-40 year olds want the most...

That's true, but I do think that in a fairly short amount of time we have seen significant movement in public perception of gay rights.  A majority now favors civil unions, although not gay marriage.  Anti-discrimination laws are widely accepted and the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. Then there are the recent cultural markers -- Ellen, Will & Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, etc.   And lets face it, those elderly voters probably won't be living for much longer.

But as Smash said, I wasn't suggesting that the GOP should start hosting drag show fundraisers (amusing as that would be). 

I wrote a paper on Roe vs. Wade as a college undergraduate and have been observing the abortion debate for some time.  I haven't seen similar movement.  As someone who is pro-choice, I see no end to the battle in sight.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

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

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