Just in the off chance that Republicans should have the opportunity to think for themselves, the GOP has issued a list of ten items, a purity test, that defines whether you are an acceptable Republican and thus eligible for campaign funds. Check to see how many of them you’re in line with (hint: if you disagree with more than three, you’re out.)
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like [President Barack] Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated policy position [sic] of the Republican National Committee, as identified by voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support by the Republican National Committee.
So a clear message is being sent to any member of the GOP who is even THINKING of drifting into a more moderate direction: Forget it. Your party doesn’t want you.
I wonder what a purity test for the Democrats would look like? Personally I don’t think the Dems could ever be organized enough to put one together.
PAD
• 
What’s the link for this?
–
Also, you have to love the way they’re not even bothering to conceal the doublethink with all those “we support this by opposing something else” provisions.
Seriously. 60% of their position [sic] is what they are against.
.
GOP = Got Opposition Policies
or
Got 0 (zero) Positives.
Gotta love GOP-speak!!!
[b](1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like [President Barack] Obama’s “stimulus” bill;[/b]
Note the grammatical meaning of this sentence. It does NOT say they are actually for those things in general, or in all cases. It merely says that their opposition to Obama’s stimulus (note no reference to Bush’s stimulus) is a gesture in that direction.
Which parallels the GOP’s so-called Pro-Life position: “We support life by opposing ONLY abortion…We will not support life in any other way, including gun deaths, war, safety regulations, or recision (cutting medical coverage to increase profits when we know it leads directly to people dying).
Which brings us to #9 which is largely a lie. The GOP is determined to allow CORPORATIONS to continue rationing and denying health care.
Yeah, not sure this is smart. The good news is, the GOP is just considering this, and it will be up for a vote in the January meeting. This is an idea put forward by some very conservative (in their own definition) republicans. When Fox News is questioning (and some conservative talk show hosts are attacking) this idea, that should tell you something.
That being said, while I may not agree with all items, doesn’t every single group, whether the RNC, the DNC, Moveon.org, or anyone else, have criteria of some sort that will affect who they will give money to or support? I can’t imagine NOW financially backing a pro-life candidate for example. Is there an implication that there’s something crooked or untoward about having a litmus test? Basically, they’re saying “we the GOP want to support candidates who support the GOP platform”. Seems at least somewhat logical.
__
Because they did such a great job opposing Bush’s unfunded Medicare bill. [rolleyes]
So, pretty much, they’re saying they support depressions and higher unemployment.
(FWIW, almost all the economists are saying that the stimulus did a modest bit for forestalling an even deeper recession and further economic problems)
Between a Catholic Bishop trying to be a puppet master, Glenn Beck dropping the facade of just being a “newcaster” and starting his own political action group and now this from the Republicans… It’s been a sad week for politics and free thought!
How much longer do we have to wait till the Republicans just rip themselves in half!
Glenn Beck is Libretarian, not Republican.
Joe V.
“Libretarian”?
If by that non-word you really mean “libertarian”, no, he isn’t. Not even close.
Beck is another typical GOP statist, the sort who occasionally uses libertarian buzzwords for cover while not actually caring about human liberty at all. Beckworld, if he could manage it, as most Republican statists would have it, would be a 1984-style pyramid with an Inner Party/business elite at the top, a somewhat larger Outer Party in the middle (the GOP blogosphere, Fox News commentators, various government and corporate bureaucrats who are under instructions to further Party aims whenever possible, and the proletariat (the rest of the population, struggling to pay for health care, housing, etc., at minimal wages when there are jobs to be had at all, propagandized that to oppose their corporate and political masters is to be “against freedom.”
I thought I was a decent Republican, but gosh, this is making me sick. I know they are supposed to be re-grouping the party, but wrong direction! We’re supposed to be moderating, not pontificating.
Sigh, PAD, I see why you stick to fiction and not run for office like I suggested.
A Purity Test? I understand the concept of ‘everybody singing from the same sheet of music’ to keep a sense of unity but this just ‘feels’ wrong.
The phrase “purity test” didn’t originate from the Republicans or did it? Anyone know the origin?
PAD’s remark about the Dems not “organized enough to put one together” is right on the mark.
The first use of “purity test” that I encountered was back in 1981 when I was introduced to the MIT Baker House purity test, 100 questions about your sexual (mainly) and to a lesser degree alcohol/drug experiences. The test had been around for a number of years before that.
My first memory of the phrase is in college as well (a bit later than Tom … back in the latter half of the ’80s). Since I suspect that’s how a lot of people remember the phrase, the idea of it being attached to the RNC fills me with entirely unwarranted amusement.
.
TWL
Am I the only one who finds items (1) and (6) a bit conflicted? Seems to me that if you’re against big deficits and debt, the last thing you should be pushing for is more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless (1) contains a “quagmire-exception clause”.
All military spending is good. Even if it is for weapons that don’t work, even if it’s for contractors who are ripping them off and not actually fulfilling their contracts, all military spending is good.
That’s their big blind spot with the budget. They’re not going to accept that items (1) and (6) are in conflict. That’s part of why they put “by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill” in item (1), they wanted to make it clear that they only care about lower budgets when they are opposing the Democrats.
As an Irishman, I feel less than well qualified to comment on this. However, while clearly failing by some margin to qualify as a Republican, in one sense I can respect any group that is prepared to put forward their beliefs in such a straightforward manner. The incumbents here in our own houses (The Dáil and the remarkably undemocratic Senate) seem to be entirely lacking in any beliefs or backbone. All direct questions get deflected with a “I’m glad you asked me that but first let me say….” I find it easier to have a modicum of respect for political groups that actually present their policies, however wrong-headed they are, and hence afford you the opportunity to argue against them, as opposed to parties and groups who publicly state they are against for example, closure of smaller hospitals, while tacitly working behind the scenes to ensure said closures.
The GOP doesn’t have any beliefs or backbone either. They just pretend to have them at full volume.
Ah, that sounds more familiar then!
I like how honest they are. 7 out of 10 of them list “opposing” as their goal.
Kind of reminds me of Grumpy in “Snow White” declaring “All females is poison! They’s full of wicked wiles!” And when asked what wicked wiles might actually be, he says, “I don’t know, but I’m ‘agin’ ’em!”
.
It’s kind of a shame that seventy percent of their platform consists not of what they’re for, but what they’re ‘agin’. I know that the G in GOP is ostensibly for “Grand” but perhaps they should change it to “Grumpy.” “Grumpy Ol’ Party.” He could be their new symbol.
.
PAD
If the GOP doesn’t watch it, they’re going to go the way of the Whigs, and a younger, meaner, dumber party is going to take their place.
With Walter Matthau as spokesman?
.
Or the Get Off (our lawn) Party.
They’d never use a Disney character would they? Disney has Gay Pride days at their parks and if they’re for gay pride that means they must be for bëšŧìálìŧÿ and pederasty too.
“With Walter Matthau as spokesman?”
Actually, that would, at the very least, be entertaining.
In actuality, the enraged bozo followers of stuff like Breitbart’s sites are more likely to be the core of a new conservative party. All 12 of them.
(hint: if you disagree with more than three, you’re out.)
Actually, at the bottom, it says “three or more.”
Therefore, you must drink at least 80% of the Kool-Aid to remain.
I find myself essentially neutral on several (mostly due to the pernicious weasel-wording); the rest, firmly “no”.
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like [President Barack] Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
.
Well, I’m certainly for smaller government in not allowing the government to trample on our civil liberties…
.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
.
If by market-based, they mean increased competition, then yep, I think the insurance companies should have to compete against a public option…
.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
.
Again, if “market-based” means supporting the growth of competing forms of alternative energy to break the monopoly of Big Oil, then yup…
.
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
.
I’m all in favor of workers’ rights… the right to organize, the right to insist on better pay and benefits, the right to compete in a marketplace where they are not undercut by outsourcing to countries that essentially employ slave labor…
.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
.
And we can stop illegal immigration by insisting on improved working conditions in the countries we do business with, so their workers don’t have to come here to make a living…
.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
.
I support victory too; as in, declare victory and get the hëll out.
.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
.
And the most effective action is not to feed into it everytime they throw a tantrum to get attention…
.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
.
I want to defend marriage! The best way is to cut all special benefits for married couples so government isn’t involved with marriage at all (smaller government!). And more funding for community and social organizations would certainly help keep families together.
.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
.
I absolutely want to protect the lives of vulnerable persons! Let’s make sure insurance companies can’t cut you off for preexisting conditions, and let’s make sure children aren’t born alone, unwanted, and uncared for into the world. Plus, I’m sure every anti-abortion protester out there would be happy to donate a larger and larger chunk of their paycheck each year to pay for all those children… right?
.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
.
Also, let’s remove those metal detectors from the Capitol building… they’re infringing on the rights of people to bear their arms…
well said sir. I would only point out that for Members of congress it is perfectly legal to bring fire arms into the capital building while that is no true of the general public. Its double standard I have always found interesting.
You’d think with all the republican males that get caught banging other guys, they’d stop pretending about the defense of marriage act.
They just have a wide stance!
I don’t know why some in the party–it’s obviously wrong to say “the GOP” has issued this when it hasn’t even been put forward to the National Committee yet–would try to limit the party’s reach just when things are going pretty well for a party that some pundits had all but written off. When your opposition is self destructing just get out of the way.
.
Not that the Democrats are exactly doomed, it’s far far too early for that. A lot can happen. But….when you see a big change in the generic congressional ballot that goes for the Democrats ahead by 12 to the Republicans ahead by 4…independents abandoning the Democrats in droves…the health care bill losing public support the longer it takes (and the idea that once passed it will become more popular is no slam dunk–the stimulus has far less support now than it did when passed), it seems that what the republicans have done (very little) is the wisest strategy. Depending on your opposition to screw up is not the best way to fight but given the nit wits running both parties it is probably the soundest choice for the one out of power.
.
But at the very least, don’t rock the boat when the rats are jumping ship.
I thought ‘Cap and Trade’ was a market-based plan. Maybe it depends on exactly how it’s done.
When I first read #9 it actually looked like they opposed denial of Government funding of abortion. They really should have phrased that better.
I used to vote for Republicans more often than Democrats, but over the last twenty years the GOP have abandoned almost all their good qualities. Unfortunately, the Democrats are still just as bad as they always were, so I’m always stuck with having to choose the lesser evil.
And I live in the state with the most restrictive ballot access laws, so I almost never get any other choices.
As for a Democratic party purity test… I agree that the left of the Democratic party isn’t as strong as the right of the Republican, but let’s say it were… the purity test would probably involve similar questions of abortion, climate change, gay rights, health care, the war, and labor unions, albeit from the diametrically opposite side. In addition, there would probably be some pretty severe restrictions on speech in the name of political correctness.
My first exposure to a Purity Test was in college, when there was the 500-question one dealing with sex, alcohol, and drugs where you lost as many points for holding hands with someone as for having sex on a nuclear sumbarine. But anyway…
Every time I see the Republicans touting this, I have to laugh when they say they’re also in support of Reagan’s Big Tent Party. Yeah, they accept everyone — as long as everyone conforms with their pre-designated beliefs. (And I do think the Democrats are more flexible about their beliefs — some support Obama’s health plan and others oppose it, some are pro-life and some pro-choice, some support gay marriage and others only heterosexual marriage — and it’s a strength that they can disagree and still get along.)
I hope this is a publicity stunt by the Republicans so any moderates are cowed into towing the party line, er, commandments. If not, it’s a sign that they really have settled on being the Party of No — and have given up on both moderates and anyone who disagrees with them on more than 30% of their big issues.
Interesting that the list doesn’t have an abortion question., That is DEFINITELY a litmus test for this party, at least for the majority of their seats, and it indicates, for whatever reason, they aren’t willing to be straightforward about it.
“I pledge allegiance to the Purity Test of the Republican Party of America…”
.
Even before this little joke of a maneuver, some within the party hinted that they were looking to oust moderates within their own ranks, which is a very bad sign for the rest of the country.
.
In the end, this just reads like a lot of the bìŧçhìņg and moaning from just a very short time ago, the “I’m the opposite of Bush!” kind of stuff.
Where are the questions about soliciting gáÿ šëx in bathroom stalls, or sending naughty text messages to Congressional pages, or “Hiking The Appalachian Trail”?
Leave it to these guys to suck all the fun out of purity tests too! o.o
Wildcat
It’s a proposal from some members, not an official party policy yet. And all it says is that if you want financial and other help from the national party, you have to agree with at least eight of the ten points. There’s no single deal-breaker here.
And look at the abortion part — you don’t have to be pro-life even, just against the government funding it.
On the other side, the Democrats have all kinds of litmus tests and deal-breaker issues — they just don’t bother to write them down, you’re supposed to know them.
For example, Joe Lieberman was drummed out of the party on a single issue. The guy was a raging liberal on every other point but the war, but he was still tossed out.
And just try being a pro-life Democrat these days.
Or have the slightest doubts about anthropogenic
global warmingclimate change.There’s a bit of refreshing honesty in this proposal — and it’s inspired by one of Ronald Reagan’s better observations: “if you agree with me 80% of the time, that’s good enough.”
J.
In fairness, it wasn’t the party that drummed Lieberman out, it was the democratic primary voters. The party did everything they could to keep him–once they promised that, if elected, Lieberman would keep his leadership posts, it was all over for Ned Lamont. Hëll, he endorsed McCain and they still let him keep his power.
.
The scary thing for the Democratic Party should be the recent Daily Kos poll that showed a huge disparity in likelihood of voting in the next election. Democrats are either discouraged or still suffering from victory fatigue. The enthusiasm just isn’t there. Republicans and, increasingly, conservative independents, can’t wait to vote in the next election. That’s the nature of the beast, of course, and it’s why they have to shove through as much legislation as quickly as possible (although that may, in turn, make the public even angrier, a vicious circle.) That’s not great for the party but it could well be the best thing for Obama–like Bill Clinton, having adversity may give him something to focus on (and, at the very least, force him to take a stronger leadership role in legislation, as opposed to trusting those dopes in congress to get it right.)
The party backed Lieberman’s primary opponent, Lamont.
Anyone wanna talk about the chances of a Democrat staying in the party’s good graces if they were, say, pro-choice? Or daring to question anthropogenic global warmening?
As noted, the Democrats have even stricter purity tests — they just don’t write ’em down for all to see.
J.
There are plenty of pro-choice Democrats. And what’s global “warmening?”
“The party backed Lieberman’s primary opponent, Lamont.”
.
No they didn’t.
.
What you may be remembering is that the DNC supported Lamont *after* the primary. That’s not turning their back on him, that’s supporting the winner of the Democratic primary. Lamont was the Democrat on the ticket, so of course they supported him.
Lieberman wasn’t drummed out of the party. He was voted out in a primary. That’s not a litmus test given by the DNC, that’s an election.
.
The problem isn’t the idea of a litmus test, the problem is that a party that’s swinging to one side, and losing because of it, is considering doing something that will push them even further to the side and cost them even more. It makes them less representative of the country, less representative of the people in their own party (who are more diverse than a 70% score on this test), and it hurts them in elections. It’s just dumb all around.
As for, “There’s a bit of refreshing honesty in this proposal — and it’s inspired by one of Ronald Reagan’s better observations: “if you agree with me 80% of the time, that’s good enough,” there’s a big problem with that. Reagan himself would not have gotten 80% on this test, so using that as the standard they’re declaring themselves enemies of Reagan without realizing it.
so using that as the standard they’re declaring themselves enemies of Reagan without realizing it.
.
Well, an attempt to rewrite the history of Saint Ron to make it seem like he was more in line with the GOP now wouldn’t exactly be a new idea.
“Joe Lieberman was drummed out of the party on a single issue. The guy was a raging liberal on every other point but the war, but he was still tossed out.”
That is just a RIDICULOUS assessment of the facts. Lieberman may be trotted out by Fox every time they want a “reasonable” Democrat, but Lieberman is as far from a raging liberal as it’s possible to be. In addition, he has not sided with the Democrat position (never mind the even further left Liberal position) on every point except the war.
If you want an honest assessment of how Joe Lieberman is viewed by democrats, take a look at :
http://thinkprogress.org/lieberman-not-progressive/
http://crooksandliars.com/tags/lieberman
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/11/02/tomo/story.jpg
Jay Tea: There’s a bit of refreshing honesty in this proposal
You just made milk come out my nose.
The Democrats have a purity test as well. The only difference is that they are smart enough not to publicly codify it.
A person who openly disagrees with some of the basic Democratic purity test criteria is marginalized, shunned altogether, or depicted as stupid, ignorant, a religious fanatic, or a fascist.
The result? Democrats — especially those who have any prominence at all — who lean conservative on certain topics, keep silent to avoid Huffington Post-type vilification should their non-sanctioned views be known. In certain circles, such as the entertainment industry, publicly taking a conservative stand on the wrong topic can cost you your livelihood.
Hard-core Republicans do the same thing in their circles, obviously, which is why I look at the extremists in both parties with a wary eye, and do not directly support either party.
ok so as a, donating, volunteering republican for 20 years lets see how I fair.
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like [President Barack] Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
Ok can stand by this one, but I have to ask where was this principle for the last 8 years? (1-0_
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
Vague, as there is no official “Obama” plan but there are many plans in the house and senate, none of which I really like. However I think a government option is a good idea or better yet a trigger of a public option if “market based” reforms do not fix the problem in a set time. So I will have to be against this one. (1-1)
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
Another vague blanket statement, I would want to decide this based on the legislation proposed. A cap and trade system where the trade is market based. i.e. a fine is imposed for going over x ppm of co2 or total tonnage of co2 but you can buy credits from other companies at a rate less then the fine sure. so (1-2)
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check; Can you say IRONY! this from the RNC that has supported ID check to prevent election fraud in public elections. But I support secret ballot, so (2-2)
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants; I opposed blanket amnesty but support a path to citizenship that include a way to earn amnesty. Close enough (3-2)
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges; Vague but I back following the advice of the leaders in the field. so (4-2)
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat; again Vague but ok (5-2)
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act; So not small government, local rule, and very unconstitutional (5-3) (not looking good)
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion;
For sake of space I will say no – (5-4)
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;
Support second amendment yes- believe second amendment mean zero restriction on all types of guns no so (5-5)
BOY will it be a fun call the next time they call asking me for money!
“(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check; Can you say IRONY! this from the RNC that has supported ID check to prevent election fraud in public elections. But I support secret ballot, so (2-2)”
.
This one is actually double speak. There’s absolutely nothing about card check that takes away secret ballots. Anyone who wanted to use a secret ballot would still be able to, it’s just that they’d also have the *option* of using a card system. Everyone would still have the right to a secret ballot, so you can be for card check and still support secret ballot.
Of course, by the same token, you could stand in front of the polling place on election day and state loudly, “I Jason M Bryant voted for N.” People tend not to do that because they prefer anonymity. The concern here is that peer pressure (i.e. extortion) would become a problem. “Hi, I’m your friendly neighborhood union rep. We, uh, have noticed that you have not yet signed your union card to bypass the secret ballot. We assume you have forgotten. Would you like me to walk you to the turn-in site so you don’t get lost?”
.
Also, you’re wrong about what the proposed law really says. If 50%+1 of the eligible electorate sign the cards, there is no ballot at all, and the union is automatically recognized. Current law uses the cards already, and 30% signup triggers the election (unless the employer consents to the union on the belief that it will lose anyway). Currently a card is like voting for cloture in the Senate– it triggers a vote, but you can still vote your conscience later if the only reason you signed the card was pressure from the union or because you just thought it should be put up for a vote. If EFCA passes, the union wins automatically if it gets enough signatures, and it will know who has/hasn’t signed. You see where the incentives lead. (Not that I imagine that employers would fail to exert pressure not to sign. Their current lobbying in that direction seems to have been what spurred this proposal to begin with.)
Well, 10/10 for me. As mentioned above, I do find it interesting/disappointing that they did not mention a pro-life stance. Certainly, the definitive litmus test for the democratic party is that one must be unabashedly pro-abortion, at least to be a in a leadership position.
I find your choice of words interesting, and this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered them. There is a difference between being pro-abortion and pro-choice. Pro-abortion would seem to indicate, at least to my moderately-intelligent mind, that the individual was supporting the termination of at least most pregnancies, whereas pro-choice would indicate, again to my mind, that the person is supporting that the individual has the right to, say, choose. Unfortunately, too often in politics and social issues little things like semantics get chucked out like last week’s spaghetti sauce.
I must say that while I know individual people who are pro-abortion (in that they feel that if a family is on welefare then they should not be legally allowed to have more children until they can adequately care for them), I don’t know of any politician, successful or not, who voices that opinion.
.
I will prefer to believe that you are using the term incorrectly.
.
Theno
unabashedly pro-abortion
.
And this would be the definition of ‘troll attempting to stir the pot’.
I like the way most of these fit the model of, “I support the fishing industry by not eating red meat” or, “I support apples by not growing orange trees.”
.
Why can’t they say things like, “We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by eliminating redundant spending and encouraging market growth?” Is it because they only want to oppose Obama’s Stimulus Bill (and not, for example, Bush’s Stimulus Bill)?
.
Why can’t they say, “We support market based health care reform by developing a public option for those that the market has turned their back on, thus encouraging the market to give better more inclusive service?” Is it because they only want to oppose the public option, and not actually reform health care?
.
Why can’t they say, “We support legal immigration and assimilation into American Society by streamlining the process and expanding the department so that applications can be processed faster?” Is it because they only want to oppose amnesty and not actually help immigrants become legal?
.
The verbiage doesn’t tell me what the Republican Party wants to do, it just tells me what it wants to oppose and what buzz-words they are going to use to justify that opposition, whether or not it makes any sense.
.
I mean, just try to make sense out of #9 that in essence says, “We support protecting … lives … by … denial of health care …” I’ll point out that those words aren’t cherry picked to change the meaning, either. The word choice and phrasing literally says that they intend to protect lives by denying health care.
.
Now, what I find interesting is that if I strip off all of the “by opposing” clarifications then I, a Democrat of many years, score a 9 of 10.
.
Theno
This ‘we oppose’ makes sense. After all, isn’t that the way an awful lot of people vote nowadays? Not ‘for’ a candidate, but in ‘opposition’ to another? Ie, the ‘anybody but…’ vote?
Yeah, sad, really.
It’s been awhile since I voted for a candidate whose platform I agreed with substantially. Which is odd, since I’m a pretty average schmoe. Generally, these days it seems like most of the time I’m voting for the candidate who is a lesser of two evils. That’s a helluva way to run a political system — don’t you think? If I were king for a day, I’d make it easy for multiple political parties to be established. That way, I could vote for like-minded folks, and since the likelihood of a majority would be much slimmer, all the various parties would HAVE to establish coalitions to get stuff done.
Yeah, but could the general American public handle the complexities of trying to vote for Prez. among more than 2 candidates?
The whole, “No one got 50+%, so who won?” effect…
Voting by order of preference, I can imagine the screw-ups that people would be banshee-wailing about then…
Keep in mind that in 1992, Clinton was elected with only 43 percent of the popular vote because there were three viable candidates. Bush the Elder got 37 percent and Ross Perot got almost 19 percent. And if Perot hadn’t knocked the unaligned voters off balance by quitting the presidential race in mid-campaign WHEN HE HAD AN EIGHT-POINT LEAD IN THE POLLS, and then changing his mind several weeks later, he may very well have won the race. That’s the closest this country has ever come in my lifetime to almost breaking the monopoly of the two-party system.
Believe me, a system like that has at least as many disadvantages as it has advantages. It is more representative, for better or worse.
Reminds me of the Treehouse of Horror on “The Simpsons” that had Kang and Kodus running for president in the bodies of Clinton and Dole. When they’re revealed to be aliens someone declares they’ll vote for a 3rd party. “Go ahead, throw your vote away! Ha ha ha!”
I am ever so glad that we don’t have Republicans and more than a little nervous that there are so many of them just south of the border. Thank God for Democrats!
Hmmm…..I agree with 8.5 of that above so I guess I am a good Republican.
As a conservative Republican, I like the list. It clearly defines what makes us different from the opposition. Yes, it defines what we are against, but it does so by contrasting it with what our opponents are for. In fact, I think it’s the Democrats who should rightly fear this proposed list. This is basically the seed of another “Contract with America.” Progressives may deride the ’94 midterm elections as “temper tantrum thrown by white males” (the words of Peter Jennings, iirc) but the fact of the matter is that the Republican party effectively made local elections a national issue and won. You can decry it as doublethink if you wish, but this has potential to pay huge dividends for the GOP.
Barry Goldwater is a good Republican.
.
Ronald Reagan is a good Republican.
.
Richard Nixon is a good Republican.
.
Of course, they’re all dead.
There are many good republicans as well as good Democrats, can they get elected president is another issue all together.
Getting to the highest office takes more than just ideals, and political skill there is also more than a fair bit of luck involved.
Bill Mulligan,
I kind of get what you’re saying. Get out of your opponents’ way when they are self-destructing.
However, I feel it is perfectly reasonable, even necessary and possibly brilliant to have this be a sort of mini-Contract with America and have Republicans state what they are for AND against. But mainly for. Because you can’t just hope your opponent keeps stumbling. In fact, I have always been of the opinion that you shouldn’t have to count on your opponent and his/her ideas being bad, but on you (and I mean you in the general sense not you specifically, Bill) should outline what you would do better.
And for those who say the list is negative because they’re saying what they’re against, please give me a break. Every item on the list starts with “WE support”. Since they are the minority part right now, they are giving specific eamples of what they will oppose to show their support. The same as if the Democrats said “We support fairness in the tax code by opposing a renewal of the Bush tax cuts” or “We support women by opposing judges who would reverse Roe v. Wade.” It’s called contrast.
It’s the timing of it I question–why give the democrats something to fight against when they are so busy fighting themselves? The party is splitting over Afghanistan, health care, the deficit–let them form the circular firing squad (a position republicans have themselves assumed in the past). Right now Independents–the holy grail of winning campaigns–are turning against the Democrats. I agree that, ideally, it’s better to be loved for what one is than merely be considered the lesser of two evils but as things stand now unless there is a big change in things soon there could well be a desire on the part of huge numbers of people to throw the current gang of idiots out, a desire that will always hurt the idiots unlucky enough to be the majority party.
.
The one smart thing I see the republican leadership doing is NOT going to hard after corruption–keep that on the backburner until closer to election time. Combine out of sight spending with a political class that seems to think that paying taxes are for other people, sweetheart deals with banks are an expected privilege, etc etc and you have the making for a potential repeat of 1994.
.
Though, ironically, the better the Republicans do in 2010, the better it might be for Obama–give him something to run against. Worked for Bill Clinton. So the best long term strategies for the republicans would be to do well in the election but not gain outright congressional control, leaving at least the appearance of control to a politically weakened president and a Democratic party that holds such a razor thin majority that it must cede to the minority party if it hopes to get anything done. 2 more years of that misery and then go for the big enchilada.
And for those who say the list is negative because they’re saying what they’re against, please give me a break. Every item on the list starts with “WE support”.
.
People are only going to remember the words “we oppose”, because, as I said the other day, it sounds like a complete rehash of the “I oppose anything Bush” stuff. It comes across as the *same thing* that the GOP complained about the Dems doing when Bush was in office.
Re: Semantics. Without getting too much into this, I just have always found it obscene that those who support abortion “rights” have been allowed to get away with calling themselves by the much more sanitized “Pro-Choice” label rather than pro-abortion or pro-abortion rights. And really, why is that? It was especially infuriating when pro-life groups would consistently be referred to as “anti-abortion”, yet pro-abortion rights groups were consistently labeled pro-choice in the media. Isn’t the opposite of anti-abortion pro-abortion? Aren’t those who favor protecting the environment, even conservatives who feel they are,referred to as holding pro-environment positions? Aren’t those who claim to support labor unions called pro-labor or pro-union? Yet those who favor abortion rights are safely called pro-choice, which means people don’t actually have to think about the improved science in the past 3+ decades and changes in philosophy that make such a practice as barbaric as ever.
My favorite example with how ridiculous this semantic shell game was being played is when the “Los Angeles Times” got caught red-faced and with their extreme bias showing when someone reviewing a play used the term “pro-life” to describe it. He meant it as a shorthand synonym for life-affirming. But the guidebook at the paper said that whenever someone or something in a press release, news story, interview, etc. was referred to or called pro-life, the term “anti-abortion” had to replace it. So the fun, heartwarming, feel-good play was referred to as an “anti-abortion” play in the review.
You can’t make this stuff up.
.
“I just have always found it obscene that those who support abortion “rights” have been allowed to get away with calling themselves by the much more sanitized “Pro-Choice” label rather than pro-abortion or pro-abortion rights. And really, why is that?”
.
Because not everyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. Actually, most people I know who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. Most people I know who are pro-choice would never have one themselves or ask their partner/girlfriend/wife/whatever to have one.They simply believe that other people should be able to make that choice for themselves.
.
“It was especially infuriating when pro-life groups would consistently be referred to as “anti-abortion”,”
.
Well, there are a number of people who refer to those people as the “anti-choice” crowd rather than the “anti-abortion” crowd. But, still, “anti-abortion” seems the most accurate for many in that camp since, like it or not, the most vocal critics in that group sometimes oppose anti-abortion legislation if it’s not 100% against. They’ll oppose the wording if it allows abortions when the life of the mother is at risk.
.
Yeah, they don’t represent the majority. I know that. But they are unfortunately becoming the public face of the movement more often than not.
.
Not really a big surprise that a political group is trying to articulate a set of beliefs for itself. I mean, pretty much every group does. Maybe not as extreme as this thing, but still…
.
Even the Democrats have their list of ideals and beliefs for membership. Sure, you can certainly have views here and there that are not in the “normal” Democrat checklist, but how many of those can you have before people start saying that you’re not a Democrat?
.
Lets just take a few things out there and use them as a hypothetical. If a guy came on the scene and claimed to be a Democrat while espousing the ideas of trickle down economics, the passing of stricter pro-life legislation, less restrictions of gun sales and gun ownership and a strong belief in the death penalty… How many people who are laughing at this list would be the first ones to claim that this hypothetical Democrat was anything but?
.
Yeah, this list isn’t well thought out or well worded and, yeah, it’s a bit extreme in that you can only disagree with two items on it. And, yeah, it looks pretty dumb on the surface of it. But honestly it’s really nothing new and really nothing that’s limited to Conservatives and/or Republicans.
Not really a big surprise that a political group is trying to articulate a set of beliefs for itself. I mean, pretty much every group does. Maybe not as extreme as this thing, but still…
.
But the extremity of it is what makes it news. The fact that the GOP is putting forward a list of party platforms is not remotely revolutionary. The notion that the Dems likely have a similar list is also not especially a startling notion. What kicks this into the stratosphere is the idea that this is being floated as a line in the sand for anyone hoping to run for office. It’s the idea that they are contemplating making a concerted effort to eliminate any moderate candidates.
.
PAD
.
Actually, the thing is only extreme in the idea that you cannot disagree with more than two items. It’s made more so in that regard since some of the items are worded very poorly and really isn’t something that can be answered properly.
.
“(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;”
.
See, that’s not really saying a lot. You can be for card check and still be for a secret ballot since card check legislation does allow for a secret ballot. It’s a bit of misdirection at best or disingenuousness at worst.
.
So, yeah, #4 is rather stupid just in how it’s phrased.
.
Beyond that stupidity… What here is really new? Against abortion? Not new. Smaller government rhetoric? Not new. Market based fill-in-the-blank rhetoric? Not new. Against illegal immigration and amnesty? Not new. Hollow support the troops rhetoric? Not new. Containing another country they don’t like and talking about stopping their nuclear programs rhetoric? Not new. Mentions of being anti-abortion? Not new. Gun ownership? Not new.
.
There’s really nothing there that’s new or unknown to the general public as Republican platforms. It’s just the level of adherence in the thing that’s relatively new.
.
And, yeah, I understand that this would be extreme and noteworthy if it was made an official litmus test for candidates, but right now this is just the idiotic extremism of the fringe. It is not representative of the entire party.
.
Latching on to fringe stupidity, while it may be ripe for lampooning, and painting the entire party with it is weak. It would be like taking the handful of idiot Dems who played stupid games under Bush by putting forward the idea that we needed to re-institute the draft and claiming that The Democratic Party was for bringing the draft back.
.
Besides, this thing is not (yet) the party’s doing. John Ensign and others in the party have spoken out against the concept. This is the “fringe” until it’s policy and it should be treated as such.
“Because not everyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. Actually, most people I know who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. Most people I know who are pro-choice would never have one themselves or ask their partner/girlfriend/wife/whatever to have one.They simply believe that other people should be able to make that choice for themselves”
Jerry,
I feel you are a reasonable guy. But I also feel you are proving my point. On no other issue can you say you are for that issue without MENTIONING THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. Pro-gun rights people arn’t called “pro choice” because, like me, even though they don’t own a gun and would possibly not use one themselves, they are for people having the choice to buy them when they want and as many as they want. I feel it is a tenet of our society and so call myself pro-gun even though I don’t own one. So if you are for abortion rights being accepted in our socity, even though you would never have one or pressure someone to have one, why not simply say you are pro-abortion, which is short for pro-abortion rights? In all seriousness, if it’s so important and fundamental a right, what’s the big deal about making people aware of what you support?
Pro-gun rights people arn’t called “pro choice” because, like me, even though they don’t own a gun and would possibly not use one themselves, they are for people having the choice to buy them when they want and as many as they want. I feel it is a tenet of our society and so call myself pro-gun even though I don’t own one. So if you are for abortion rights being accepted in our socity, even though you would never have one or pressure someone to have one, why not simply say you are pro-abortion, which is short for pro-abortion rights?
.
If the right wants to start referring to itself as pro-choice regarding guns, I have no problem with that. I would actually pay serious money to watch major GOP representatives declare they’re pro-choice.
.
PAD
.
Jerome, the tag “pro-choice” is still the more appropriate as the issue that defines the people is their belief that a woman has the right to choose what she’s going to do in this matter. “Pro-abortion” is incorrect as a description because many pro-choice people are not in fact pro-abortion.
.
I don’t think that women should be going and getting abortions whenever, wherever and over whatever. If someone states that they don’t personally like abortions they won’t have me or others arguing with them about why they should like abortions. If a pregnant woman doesn’t want her baby and decides that putting it up for adoption is what she wants to do; I and others are not going to tell her that she should go and get herself an abortion instead. The POV is not pro-abortion. The POV is not for women having abortions above and beyond all other options or even at all.
.
The belief is simply a pro-choice one. It’s the belief that a woman should have the ability to make that choice for herself. Thus the label “pro-choice” is a more accurate label than “pro-abortion” for most of the crowd described by that label.
.
What you’re attempting to do or simply supporting the attempt of, whether you realize it or not, is the attempt to demonize the people who are ideologically your opposite. It’s like, using your example from above, the extreme Left tries to paint the gun rights crowd as pro death. Hey, a gun is only good for killing. Even sporting events like simple marksmanship competitions is just practicing to be a better killer. Guns only have one use. They kill. And when gun owners snap they kill a lot of people with their guns. Oh, and it’s, of course, the really ignorant that cling to their guns anyhow. They’re not the guns rights crowd. They’re the pro killing crowd.
.
Or, for that matter, the rhetoric of the Left against those who support the use of the death penalty. People who support the death penalty do so because they feel that society’s ultimate crime deserves its ultimate penalty. Take a life by an act of murder and forfeit your own in return. That’s an act of justice. But the anti-death penalty crowd claims that those who support the death penalty just want revenge, are ghouls, are uncivilized or, in really extreme arguments, are racists.
.
That’s utter horse šhìŧ, but that’s the game that some on the left like to play in the argument of gun rights VS gun ownership restrictions and the death penalty argument. It’s an attempt to belittle or demonize the opposition crowd. Well, that’s the game you’re playing here. It’s easier for you to get worked up and get your friends worked up because those people are for abortions. Those people want woman to get abortions on demand and want to push abortions on others. They’re pro-abortion and it’s “obscene” in your view that they would claim a more “sanitized” name than the one you want them to have.
.
That’s just the kind of garbage that people use to justify their righteousness and the ugly and/or extreme rhetoric they choose to use. And, hey, after all, it’s much easy to attack people instead of really discuss their POV once you’ve decided their “real” motivations for them and demonized them over it.
.
It’s the same thing, Jerome, and it’s utter horse šhìŧ as well.
For what it’s worth, I have absolutely no trouble adhering to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. I fully support people having the right to bear arms in order to defend the state, as long as they are members of a well-regulated militia. That’s what the Amendment says and that’s the proper context for it.
.
If you don’t belong to a well-regulated militia designed to defend the state, then the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to you and you have no intrinsic right to stock up on arms.
.
Pretty simple, really.
.
PAD
Yes, but, as with many other things in life, including the abortion rights we’ve been discussing, we operate under not only the Constitution but the laws of the land that exist based on how the Supreme Court has ruled on the interpretation of Constitutional matters. Right now we exist under the ruling that places more emphasis on “keep and bear arms” and less on a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” in the wording.
.
I hunt. My preference is bow hunting, but I also use a gun from time to time. I also have an academic interest in weapons and collect some in the same way a Trek fan might collect Trek memorabilia. I’m an extremely, anally safe hunter. I have never pointed any of my personal firearms at a human being even when I “knew” them to be unloaded. I’ve also never committed a crime using one of my firearms. So it’s really no one else’s business if I want to get another shotgun for hunting or another pistol for the range beyond the proper authorities or their concern if I do so.
.
My freedom of choice on the matter to own firearms. Your freedom of choice on the matter is to not own a gun.
The 2nd amendment is a complex beast.
.
It’s good that Jerry mentioned hunting, since that actually was part of the Founding Fathers’ reasoning for the 2nd amendment. Part of the reason guns were outlawed in England was as a way of cutting down on illegal hunting. All the land was owned by lords, thus they wanted to do everything they could to keep the peasants from being able to hunt on their land. When settlers came to America, there was an abundance of land and anyone could hunt on it. The ability to hunt (not for sport at the time, but to help feed your family) became a part of the American culture and a point of pride in its difference from life in England.
.
However, while hunting may be part of what influenced the Founding Fathers, it obviously wasn’t important enough to be in the 2nd amendment.
.
Also, I don’t think people’s love of hunting is really in conflict with the point that PAD brought up. If everyone agreed (science fiction, I know, but bear with me for the sake of a hypothetical) that the 2nd amendment only protected gun ownership for the sake of militias, that wouldn’t automatically mean that all other guns would be outlawed. It would just give the government the leeway to pick and choose which gun laws *are* appropriate without every gun law being challenged on constitutional grounds. So we could still have hunting, but at the same time Washington DC could pass its law about people being required to report any guns that are stolen. That one especially boggles my mind since it doesn’t even limit legal gun possession in any way, but the NRA challenged it.
Man… I’ve gotta get better at editing and rewriting on the fly in between Ian attacks. Some of the stuff I wrote above is half the first writing, half the rewriting and all full of mixed tenses.
.
I do that all the time, Jerry. Mixed up editing is one of the massive pains of message boards. Sites that let you edit are nice, but once people start reading and replying, there isn’t much way back.
.
I try to give some slack when reading message boards. After all, we actually mix up tenses worse when talking, we just don’t notice because the conversation moves on so quickly.
.
” However, while hunting may be part of what influenced the Founding Fathers, it obviously wasn’t important enough to be in the 2nd amendment.”
.
True to a degree, but the thing is that the 2nd Amendment may in fact be misunderstood in how it’s written. I’ve seen it argued, and quite successfully so given the laws of the land, that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee the rights of the people to keep and bear arms and that the portion referring to a well regulated militia was not as much a qualifier as it was a statement of why it was of the utmost importance. The argument is that, given the backgrounds and writings of the authors of the Constitution, the history of Europe’s games with taking away firearms and suppressing “the peasants” who were now unarmed and the times they just survived, the reference to “the security of a free State” was a statement to the people and something of a warning to future leaders.
.
The idea was that they were saying to the people that they were guaranteeing the right of the peoples’ liberties and telling some of the contemporary American leaders of the time that there would be no repeats in the new America of some of the things that occurred in early colonial times or over in England. They were guaranteeing the people their security and they underscored that right by stating in writing with it what they saw as one if the primary reasons that the populace might need those weapons.
.
Not sure I agree totally with that one myself, but it is an interesting notion and it is somewhat support by the writings of the same people who had a hand in writing, rewriting, rewriting again, rewriting some more, rewriting yet again and then finalizing the wording of The Constitution. Another interesting argument that I’ve read actually plays with using one of the more popular Constitutional arguments of the Left. The Constitution is in fact a living, breathing document that changes and evolves with the times and the 2nd Amendment has been evolved by the times.
.
At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no such thing as a full time American military in the form that we now know it. As the country grew and expanded we created the military and state guard units that we have today. As a result of this we have done away with the need for a well regulated militia in each state to ensure “the security of a free State” in this country, but we still retained as individuals the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
.
As our country, our government, our military and our world evolved the “living, breathing document” evolved with them. As a result it should be Constitutionally recognized that we retain the right to own firearms (with some reasonable restrictions) without the qualifier of having to maintain a state regulated militia. Our world changed and our Constitution changed to maintain our given rights in the face of a new military structure.
.
Again, not sure that I’m 100% there, but it certainly gives the “living, breathing document” crowd fits when their own philosophy is used in a way that they dislike. As you say, the 2nd amendment is a complex beast.
.
” The ability to hunt (not for sport at the time, but to help feed your family) became a part of the American culture and a point of pride in its difference from life in England.”
.
I’ve got news for you. The idea of hunting to help feed your family is a growing thing around here and one of the reasons I started hunting again. I hunted when I was younger, but I honestly hunted back then for the challenge of it. Even though I wasn’t a trophy hunter I still did it for the fun of it and for the sport of it. Well, I went a lot of years not hunting before getting back into it and the reason I got back into it, besides kinda missing it, was that it was becoming economically attractive. In this economy and with the loss of overtime opportunities; buying the amount of quality meat that I can get hunting and fishing would easily cost me 15X what the costs for hunting add up to. For the head of a family of 3 living off of a cop’s salary that’s a hëll of a money saver. And I’m not the only one who is out there for that reason. I’d been away from hunting in Virginia for so long that I decided to take a hunter safety course to update myself on everything that had changed. There were a lot of first time hunters in that class who were older than I am and some of them were looking at the financial aspects of it as well.
.
With the economy being what it is; hunting is a lot less a “sport” for a lot of people and is again being looked at as a way to help feed one’s family.
PAD wrote: For what it’s worth, I have absolutely no trouble adhering to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. I fully support people having the right to bear arms in order to defend the state, as long as they are members of a well-regulated militia. That’s what the Amendment says and that’s the proper context for it.
.
If you don’t belong to a well-regulated militia designed to defend the state, then the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to you and you have no intrinsic right to stock up on arms.
.
Pretty simple, really.
.
Well, it is simple, but the answer isn’t what you think it is. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Heller went into depth about what “well-regulated militia” meant. The problem you run across is that “militia” doesn’t mean the National Guard. It is, by definition, an armed body of citizens. It can’t be an organ of the state, frankly, because part of its function is to exercise the people’s right of revolution. (They’d just finished a big one of those 8 years before passing the 2nd Amendment, recall.) Traditionally militias were unpaid, as standing armies were thought to be in the pockets of their paymasters in government and therefore held great potential for mischief. Militias were purely local organizations that provided their own weaponry and officer corps. If you really want to force gun nuts to band together and call themselves a militia in order to secure their rights to weaponry, feel free to propose that.
.
That’s the first problem. The second problem is that the comment about the well-regulated militia isn’t part of the mandate of the Amendment. It’s in a prologue. The actual operative clause reads, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” not the right of the Several States, or the right of the people assembled, nor any of the multitude of phrases it might have used to denote a collective right. The “right of the people peaceably to assemble” in the First Amendment doesn’t protect the right of the state to have a legislature, it protects private groups. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” from the Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect only public libraries or shelters, it is an individual right. So why is “the right of the people” a collective right in the Second Amendment, and only in the Second Amendment?
.
As an aside, if the Amendment protects only militia weapons, we’ve been handling firearms in this country exactly backwards, and we would be able to ban shotguns but not assault rifles, as they would be the service weapons of our militias.
.
Heller,,,
,
Can’t believe that case’s argument slipped my mind when posting the other night. Ðámņëd thing was only about a year ago.
Oh, and surprise surprise, I’m 10 for 10 in regards to the new list.
re: semantics. Sorry to butt in here, but I’m in English, so, hence, I’m very “pro-word.” I think the simple reason “pro-choice” is used over “pro-abortion” is a recognition that the word “abortion” in Western society carries with it an incredibly negative connotation. I’d argue it’s the same reason those on the Right call themselves “pro-life” rather than “anti-abortion”– “anti” and “abortion” are both negative terms, and rather than one canceling out the other, which, technically, is what they do in terms of actual meaning, it’s easier to just avoid the word entirely. There are certain words in the English language–or any language–that tend to direct a discourse down certain paths, and if people want to avoid using them, then that’s a strategic move on their part. But it’s equally important to recognize that it’s a strategy everyone uses, to one degree or another. There is a difference between “pro-choice” and “pro-life” in terms of how far each term goes in obscuring the original term “abortion,” but I think it’s a difference of degree rather than kind.
You raise a good point, except where the argument falls apart for conservatives is that they also tend to adore the death penalty. So the notion that they’re “pro-life” establishes a moral high ground to which they cannot adhere.
.
No one adores the notion of abortion, which is why those who are pro-choice prefer to focus on the real issue: A woman’s right to choose. The question is whether the government should be involving itself in such personal medical questions. Which, now that I think about it, underscores a further conservative hypocrisy: Howling over the notion of government intrusion into medical decisions in order to provide health care. They utterly oppose the government making decisions about medical procedures…unless, of course, it’s a medical procedure they themselves oppose.
.
PAD
“You raise a good point, except where the argument falls apart for conservatives is that they also tend to adore the death penalty. So the notion that they’re “pro-life” establishes a moral high ground to which they cannot adhere.”
.
I’ve always found that argument to be a smoke and mirrors play. That’s like saying that since you believe in personal liberties and freedom you cannot believe in arrest and incarceration. After all, people in jail don’t have any real freedoms or personal liberties to speak of.
.
Plus you’re taking an argument from column A and trying to apply it to column Z. Someone can easily believe in the sanctity of life and seek to protect an innocent life that has never done anything whatsoever to anyone while supporting the death penalty for those who have chosen to murder others. As I said above; if you chose to commit what some see as the ultimate crime in society you earn yourself that society’s ultimate punishment.
Oh! Very true, Peter!
I do wonder where that leaves me, though. I firmly believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion (so therefore I’m pro-choice) but I also support the death penalty for violent crimes.
similarly, many of the “pro-choice” feminists I have known are decidedly anti-choice when it comes to certain magazines, videos, movies, etc. On almost any college campus, the people who are most likely to be in favor of limits on free speech, whether it be in the form of “speech codes”, “free speech zones”, prosecution of those who are deemed guilty of what they determine to be “hate speech”, boycotts of those who do not have the proper thoughts on things…pretty much anyone who still sees “politically correct” as a noble idea…are most likely to be the very same folks who are proudly “pro-choice”.
.
But although many pro-choice people cannot adhere to the moral high ground such an appellation suggests, I prefer to use both it and “pro-life’ when I am stupid enough to get dragged into an abortion discussion (Thankfully, I have grown less stupid over the years. You can only fool me so many times. So, so many…) Using terms other than what the activists use for themselves just gets one bogged down in needless semantics and, as I say above, neither side has much grounds to complain on that point anyway.
similarly, many of the “pro-choice” feminists I have known are decidedly anti-choice when it comes to certain magazines, videos, movies, etc. On almost any college campus, the people who are most likely to be in favor of limits on free speech, whether it be in the form of “speech codes”, “free speech zones”, prosecution of those who are deemed guilty of what they determine to be “hate speech”, boycotts of those who do not have the proper thoughts on things…pretty much anyone who still sees “politically correct” as a noble idea…are most likely to be the very same folks who are proudly “pro-choice”.
.
Yes, I know. And I have railed against that mindset, displayed by various members of the liberal community, and even based an entire story in “Supergirl” about those attitudes, and consequently have been labeled anti-feminist and racist at various times. I have pointed out hypocrisies on both sides any number of times, although curiously people tend to forget that whenever I criticize the right.
.
At least I’m consistent.
.
PAD
oh, I think most of the long timers here remember that and appreciate it. Believe me, we get it. And it’s pretty gutsy, because if any group ever succeeds in getting Marvel to fire you it won’t be a bunch of right wing fundamentalist Christians, it will be a bunch of people who probably like to describe themselves as pro-choice.
.
Not that i expect them to succeed in that but one should never overestimate the courage of corporations.
.
“if any group ever succeeds in getting Marvel to fire you it won’t be a bunch of right wing fundamentalist Christians, it will be a bunch of people who probably like to describe themselves as pro-choice.”
.
Sad but true.
.
One of the reasons I divorced myself from the labels “Democrat” and “Left” (even if I still admit that I’m left of center on many things) years ago now is that I found myself more and more often disgusted by the actions of many of the groups who proudly clung to those labels and claimed shared beliefs with me. Of course, they would throw those beliefs to the curb in a heartbeat when it was their turn to do to others what they themselves complained about having been done to them.
.
Too many people on both sides of the spectrum tend to decry the censorship of the the other side while justifying the same garbage when they wanted to do it. Too many people on both sides play religion like a game. Too many people on both sides cry and moan about the crap that’s being done to them when they’re not in the majority and then when they get in power they turn around and do to the other side the exact same things with a big ol’ smile on their face.
.
Way too much hypocrisy on both sides. But, yeah, Bill is likely bang on target there.
The really dumb thing is when they actually pass laws to give some bite to their censorious ways and you just have to marvel at the lack of forward thinking–they really must believe that they will be in charge forever and this will never come back to bite them soundly on the ášš! Sadly, one of the disadvantages with being for free speech and all that is that one ends up having to help these idiots when that happens, though I think we ought to take our sweet time about it, soak in the Schadenfreude for a bit.
Speaking of semantics… despite the fact that I am “pro science” in almost every way, from a totally intellectual standpoint, I’ve just never been able to seriously refer to the intentional extinguishment of a human life as a “medical procedure” — as if having an abortion is like getting a mole removed.
“Yes, I know. And I have railed against that mindset, displayed by various members of the liberal community, and even based an entire story in “Supergirl” about those attitudes, and consequently have been labeled anti-feminist and racist at various times. I have pointed out hypocrisies on both sides any number of times, although curiously people tend to forget that whenever I criticize the right.”
Actually, Peter, it is that clarity that garners you some conservative fans. In the early nineties, when comic books defined conservatives by Guy Gardner and Frank Castle, your balanced view of the death penalty in Hulk gained me as a fan. Like Camille Paglia, you’re one of the few progressives I trust to see things clearly even if I disagree with your conclusions.
Actually, Peter, it is that clarity that garners you some conservative fans. In the early nineties, when comic books defined conservatives by Guy Gardner and Frank Castle, your balanced view of the death penalty in Hulk gained me as a fan.
.
Boy, I remember that story. I got angry letters from liberals complaining because they said it was pro-death penalty, and I got angry letters from conservatives complaining because they said it was anti-death penalty. That was the story that underscored for me how people viewed stories through the prism of their own experiences.
.
The only thing that united them was stating that people dying by state execution in a comic book was a bad thing. And my response was, Well, let’s keep in mind that these were fictional characters. If people dying by the hand of the state upsets you that much, perhaps you want to consider doing something about the real people who are being executed.
.
PAD
.
Yeah, and then you got letters from people like me saying that you kinda blew the story rigging parts of it for your desired POV and you really blew the ending by massively rigging it for your desired POV.
.
When I first read it I thought it felt like you were using a sledge hammer to push your POV when a more well thought out and subtle approach would have been more effective. When I read your BID column about it… I knew you had used the sledge hammer instead of a more subtle and effective approach.
The Right seems to be losing a fair amount of people over 10-point bulletins: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/12/major-conservative-blogger-defects-from.html
Bill,
“Using terms other than what the activists use for themselves just gets one bogged down in needless semantics and, as I say above, neither side has much grounds to complain on that point anyway.”
With all due respect, Bill, I call bûllšhìŧ. Words are important. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Certain skinhead groups describe themselves as “white empowerment groups”. Should the media describe them as that? Would it be wrong to call them racist?
The fact that for 35 years a group advocating what they say the majotity of the people see as a “right” have been advocating that “right” and using it as a litmus test while being allowed to not use what they are advocating as a major “right” to label themselves, but instead get to use a nebulous, misleading, antiseptic term like “choice” is pretty outrageous. Since the NRA can say they are “pro choice” on guns; the taven association can say they are “pro choice” on smoking in bars. Yet the only group that gets to call themselves “pro choice” is one who advocates a medical procedure that has killed over 40 million in the past 35 years. Given improved technology and science, people know that “something” is killed and it is not just a clump of cells. So instead of making it clear they defend a procedure that is increasingly indefensible in the realms of science, morality and law they choose to mask what they defend with the ambiguous, generic term “choice”. Many justifiably have a problem with that.
Nice to know your reading comprehension is so good.
Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion are two different things as other posters took the time to amply spell out.
I just don’t see how any hope of advancing the debate will happen by bogging down in useless arguments over “pro-life” or “pro-choice”. Are all people who support abortion rights truly pro-choice? hëll no, as I said. Are all who oppose abortion truly “pro-life’ in all aspects? not at all, as PAD pointed out. But on the issue of abortion some support he right to what they see as a legal and morally defensible choice and others support what they see as defending the lives of innocent humans. Out of respect for the genuinely decent people on both sides of the issue i prefer to use the terms for each that they prefer.
.
Would I be so respectful to skinheads? No, but I have ye to meet a skinhead whose opinion on the issue of race was based on anything other than ignorance and/or hatred. So I feel no particular obligation to spare their feelings.
.
The tragedy of the abortion debate to me is that the intelligent people on both sides make a compelling case and there is little hope for compromise.
Big difference between the two sides though:
Pro-Choice: You can have an abortion if you really want to, it’s your decision, you don’t have to have one, it’s up to you.
“Pro-Life”: You don’t get a choice, you can’t have one because I say it’s wrong!!!!
I’ll side with the freedom crowd on this one.
“Between a Catholic Bishop trying to be a puppet master, Glenn Beck dropping the facade of just being a “newcaster” and starting his own political action group and now this from the Republicans… It’s been a sad week for politics and free thought’
Didn’t notice this before. But it’s so ridiculous I have to respond.
First, I assume you are referring to the whole Kenneedy/Communion brouhaha. What, really, is the problem? For years politicians like Kennedy wabnted to curry favor with groups like working-class Catholics while at the same time pushing doctrine that contradicts the church they belong to. But it is not a right to be a member of any church (or many other organizations). So regardless of whether people want to portray the bishop as harsh, hypocritical, judgemental, etc. the fact remains he has every right to do what he did and continues to do. The4 bishop is basically saying “Decide if you want your political career to suffer or your relationship with the Church to suffer. This has nothing to do with Kennedy’s personal relationship with God, which no one but him can know. It has everything to do with whther or not a church should be able to decide who is a member in good standing and who is not. And, like virtually every other organization, of course they can.
And if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that Glenn Beck does not refer to himself as a newscaster. So who cares if he is starting a political action group? Isn’t it a good thing to give voice to those who feel they aren’t being heard? Or is that only people you agree with.
Actually, if this past week has shown anything, it’s that conservatism is a lot stronger than most imagined it would be 13 months ago.
Catholic church wants to get political? Revoke their tax-exempt status…
Churches are allowed to be political. they always have been. The civil rights movement was driven in large part by churches.
.
Since Kennedy is a member of the church they are totally within their rights to complain if he does not follow the tenants of his church. To revoke their tax exempt status on this would be the State dictating how the Church must treat its own members. Now if they start telling church members they must vote for Kennedy’s opponent, well, that would be different.
Churches in America have historically been political. In fact, one of the names the Brits called our War for Independence was was “the Presbyterian Revolt” because of the involvement of churches in preaching revolution.
As for revoking tax exempt status for being political, will you insist on the same treatment for Jeremiah Wright’s church? How about any member of the World Council of Churches? Revoking tax status for political views is risky because it’s subjective.
Then let me re-word:
ALL churches should be stripped of tax-exempt status.
Bladestar,
“Nice to know your reading comprehension is so good.
Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion are two different things as other posters took the time to amply spell out”
Nice to see your logic and rudeness are still intact, also. Just because other posters spell out what they feel are differences, doesn’t make it factual. It’s still opinion, no matter how “amply spelled out” their “case” may be. Same as how even calling some in the abortion debate “pro-lifers” drives some people I know insane, to the point of having a major newspaper calling a life-affirming play ant-abortion, though it had nothing to do with abortion. But the term pro-life was replaced anyway and made the paper look ridiculous.
.
“Just because other posters spell out what they feel are differences, doesn’t make it factual. It’s still opinion, no matter how “amply spelled out” their “case” may be.”
.
No. Sorry. Wrong answer. It is in fact a fact.
.
If I or anyone else here tells you that they and other they know support such and such a position, that we arrived at such and such a position because of certain beliefs and/or explain exactly what foundation supports those beliefs or that position… That’s a fact.
.
opinion comes into play when someone like, say, a Jerome Maida comes along and declares that he doesn’t really care what others say about their own positions or beliefs because, well darn it, he wants them to accept what he wants them to accept so that he can pretend to be right about the matter and then proceeds to describe what he thinks is actually their beliefs or positions.
.
Jesus Christ, Jerome… You’re becoming a parody here. You’re like the fringe Right’s version of the Fringe Left’s idiots in this debate.
.
Sure, those “people” on in “pro-life” camp claim that they’re all about defending the life of the unborn, but we know what they’re really about. The worst of them just hate women. They just want to keep women barefoot and pregnant and without any rights. And the rest? Hypocrites one and all. Sure, they pretend that they “care” about a life, but they don’t. They don’t care about what the woman has to go through and they don’t even care if the woman’s life is at risk so long as they can say they “saved” a baby. And you better believe that those “pro-life” hypocrites will be the first in line to condemn that some woman and her child if they ever have to take public assistance. Save the fetus, but let the child starve…”
.
I’ve met those fringe idiots and that’s exactly how they paint the people who hold your position on the matter. Like you it seems, they have to discount what someone actually tells them id the foundation or details of their beliefs because they would rather make up their own version of someone else’s beliefs. Hey, I can understand it, Jerome. It’s a lot easier to demonize the other people that way and it saves you the trouble of having to actually think.
.
Seriously, I’ve seen you belittled people in discussions before for posting “facts” based on Michael Moore’s works or deciding that their version of what Conservatives really believe and stand for is reality while what the Conservatives are actually saying is just meaningless fluff. And rightly so in some cases. But here you are holding up Beck as some speaker of truth who gives people “the full story” and deciding that what you want other people’s beliefs or motivations is reality while what they actually tell you is meaningless “opinion” that doesn’t count.
.
The various people you’ve belittled and insulted in the past? Look in the mirror. There’s another one just like ’em standing there.
“It’s the idea that they are contemplating making a concerted effort to eliminate any moderate candidates.”
Not really. They just want people to stand for something. Which would be nice after a moderate like McCain got crushed since he was basically Democrat-lite – and got demonized anyway. Go after people who are passionate and principled, who want to be serious about cutting spending,who won’t kick entitlement reform down the road like Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. The latter tried, but did not have the courage to come up with his own plan, and was betrayed by “moderates” like Lindsey Graham, who didn’t want Republicans to have two tough votes to defend after CAFTA.
I want people who are passionate and I want candidates who can inspire.
As for the Second Amendment… the Constitution says “arms.” It does not say “guns.” This is important because it leaves us to define “arms.”
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is the militia. So what arms must we have to have a militia? In 1791, arms refered to muskets, knives, and cannonballs. Do we go by what arms the Founding Fathers knew of? If we do, our militia will be useless.
If we define arms broadly, then that includes hand grenades, fighter planes, even nuclear weapons. Only that interpretation would allow modern day militia to wage a modern day revolution. Historically, the Supreme Court allows for such updating of interpretations–but not on this one (and I don’t hear any sane people arguing we should all have hand grenades).
So really, even the conservatives support a limit on the 2nd Amendment. The only difference is WHERE TO DRAW THAT LINE.
And once we draw a line (as we have, which is somewhere along the line of automatics vs semiautomatics), then we can JUSTLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY draw that line ANYWHERE WE WANT… so long as a single type of arm (club, knife, rock) is allowed.