-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243165-dems-hope-for-cruz-fear-bush (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243165-dems-hope-for-cruz-fear-bush)
May 27, 2015, 06:00 am
Dems hope for Cruz, fear Bush
By Mike Lillis
Democrats are rooting for Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) to win the Republican presidential nomination, and Jeb Bush is the 2016 candidate they fear the most, according to a survey conducted by The Hill.
In interviews with more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers, former members and strategists, The Hill asked questions to gauge what Democrats think of the large Republican field.
Democrats think Cruz, a conservative firebrand, would alienate independent voters, propel liberals to the polls and give their party the best shot at picking up congressional seats in next year’s elections.
Bush, they say, would be the much tougher opponent, because he’s a former governor from a political dynasty who can both raise hundreds of millions of dollars and appeal more strongly to women and independent voters.
The former Florida governor’s moderate positions on immigration, while unpopular in conservative circles, would also help him with Hispanic voters who could prove crucial in important battleground states such as Florida, Nevada, Virginia and Colorado, the Democrats say.
Bush has not officially entered the contest, but is expected to announce his bid in the coming weeks.
“Unquestionably, without going into names, a more centrist Republican candidate is tougher to campaign against,” said Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), who’s heading the messaging strategy for House Democrats.
“All the polling shows us that the Republican brand is highly unpopular,” Israel added. “A Republican who’s reflecting that brand all the way on the right is easy to win against. A Republican who plays against the brand is harder to win against.”
Behind Bush, Democrats are also wary of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), two relatively new faces who have nonetheless proven to be effective fundraisers while appealing to conservatives and independents alike.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) characterized both as “formidable opponents,” singling out Rubio as particularly tough “because he has no record” and “can make it up as he goes.”
Democrats, who are licking their wounds after a brutal 2014 election cycle, are hoping to ride the coattails of their most likely nominee — Hillary Clinton — to down-ballot success at the polls in 2016.
But they think their chances also hinge on their ability to draw the sharpest contrast between the two candidates at the top of the ticket. That’s why Bush and Rubio worry Democratic operatives.
The Democrats polled by The Hill — by no means members of the Cruz fan club — are rooting for him in the primary battle.
The overwhelming refrain from the Democrats polled is that the Texas senator’s no-apologies brand of conservatism would provide the contrast that will boost their odds in congressional races.
“I don’t [dispute] that Cruz is a force — he’s demonstrated that — but he’s the force that we’d like to see,” said Rep. John Larson (Conn.), former head of the House Democratic Caucus. “He’s a very talented and capable person, but his path to ascendency is to take them further right than they already are, and in order for them to win, they’ve got to be center-right.”
Doug Thornell, Democratic strategist and managing director at SKDKnickerbocker, echoed that message, arguing that a Cruz nomination “would be a catastrophe for the Republican Party.”
“He would be an anvil around the necks of House and Senate Republicans,” Thornell said. “He’s toxic. People see him as a destructive force who doesn’t want to see Washington work, and would shut the place down.”
The 44-year-old Cruz, the first candidate to jump into the still-growing GOP primary field, has been a quickly rising force in national politics, carving out a conservative niche.
His insistence that an ObamaCare repeal be a part of a government spending package contributed to the 2013 shutdown, and his hard line on issues as diverse as immigration reform and abortion have made him a darling of the Tea Party. But many Republicans are wary of Cruz, saying that he has damaged the GOP brand.
Several political action committees supporting Cruz have raked in tens of millions of dollars already this year. And Cruz’s campaign got a boost last week when four Texas Republicans — Reps. Louie Gohmert, Michael Burgess, John Culberson and John Ratcliffe — endorsed his presidential bid.
Still, establishment Republicans, perhaps acknowledging Cruz’s polarizing nature, have been much more reluctant to get on board. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said he’s looking for a presidential nominee “who can unite our party and not divide it.”
“A lot of us are tired of this division going on,” McCaul said Thursday at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast in Washington. “I like more a Reagan-type person who can bring the party together and the country, and not be a polarizing, divisive figure.”
Democrats know that Cruz is not the favorite to win the GOP primary. The RealClearPolitics average of polls shows Bush at the top, with Cruz tied for fifth.
Still, political strategists say Cruz could do well in the Iowa caucuses and seize momentum. A recent Quinnipiac University poll had Walker leading Iowa, with Cruz in fourth place and Bush in seventh.
A former House Democrat, noting Cruz’s role in fueling the 2013 government shutdown, said the freshman Texas senator would be a godsend for the Democrats.
“He’s polarizing enough that he would really stimulate the Democratic base,” the former lawmaker said on background. “And he’s controversial enough in the Republican Party that it would disquiet the Chamber of Commerce wing and deaden the Republican turnout.”
Not all Democrats agree. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) said he’s concerned that the fellow Texan would energize Republicans in a way that Mitt Romney simply didn’t in 2012. And Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) offered a similar message, arguing that turnout in states like his “is the whole game.”
“In Florida, there’s the blue team, there’s the red team, and everyone knows which team they’re on. It’s that simple. So the only question is: Can you get your people to vote?” Grayson said. “The more effective Republican presidential candidate will be the one who can motivate the base.”
-
Yeah, because only moderate Republicans can win a national election. *derp* :thumbsdown:
-
(https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11233172_10204773096863086_7403362933356318905_n.jpg?oh=64bcf0ce37e4e25fe0d0407cdf878bf6&oe=55C610C0)
-
The article is from the LIB publication the HILL.? So it must be discounted by most conservatives. Notice how the say JEB is the one they LIBS fear the most. So they just told everyone who they want as the R candidate. The Title is a Fake reverse ( football) to throw you off whom they really fear the most. That is Ted Cruz. The LIBS will always tell one whom the fear the most no matter what the title of the article will say. TC was right about the Gov't shutdown and they know it but both the LIBS and RINOGOP want JEB or MARCO and will do and say anything for either one to get the nomination???? :patriot:
-
(https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11233172_10204773096863086_7403362933356318905_n.jpg?oh=64bcf0ce37e4e25fe0d0407cdf878bf6&oe=55C610C0)
Not very recent polls and polls from biased sources. I'm sure the RNC has already hired these "strategists" to advise them.
:th_10444:
-
The article is from the LIB publication the HILL.? So it must be discounted by most conservatives. Notice how the say JEB is the one they LIBS fear the most. So they just told everyone who they want as the R candidate. The Title is a Fake reverse ( football) to throw you off whom they really fear the most. That is Ted Cruz. The LIBS will always tell one whom the fear the most no matter what the title of the article will say. TC was right about the Gov't shutdown and they know it but both the LIBS and RINOGOP want JEB or MARCO and will do and say anything for either one to get the nomination???? :patriot:
Obviously the fear from the liberal side is that a Jeb or Marco will cut into their presumed Hispanic vote as well as the women's vote. So any suggestion that Cruz will somehow be able to put together a national coalition of whites, minorities, women and the elderly is purely wishful thinking, given his record and rhetoric. Yes, the left desperately wants a Cruz running against a somewhat weakened Hillary. Cruz isn't a bad sort as a senator, but I'm not sure how he'll even get the right wing vote given that many of them don't believe he's eligible to run for president.
-
Not very recent polls and polls from biased sources. I'm sure the RNC has already hired these "strategists" to advise them.
:th_10444:
Every aggregate poll for the last two months have shown the same thing: Bush with a slight lead over Walker.
Dismiss them if you wish, but two weeks ago Bush was in the lead, he was in the lead two months ago and he will probably still hold the lead in the next posting of this poll.
And he's yet to formally announce.
-
I do not believe these 'polls'. I think they are being manipulated by Dems somehow.
I know as a Democrat, there is no one I would rather have running on the Pub side than another Bush. There is already so much premade baggage associated with that name.
I would guess the exact opposite is true. They want Bush and fear Cruz.
-
Cruz isn't a bad sort as a senator, but I'm not sure how he'll even get the right wing vote given that many of them don't believe he's eligible to run for president.
The vast majority of them would vote for a turnip over Hillary Clinton!
-
I do not believe these 'polls'. I think they are being manipulated by Dems somehow.
I know as a Democrat, there is no one I would rather have running on the Pub side than another Bush. There is already so much premade baggage associated with that name.
I would guess the exact opposite is true. They want Bush and fear Cruz.
Next to Hillary, Jeb's baggage is carry-on.
it's dangerous to only believe those things that support what we already believe.
-
The vast majority of them would vote for a turnip over Hillary Clinton!
...But not for Bush. It does suggest however that the self-described "constitutional conservatives" will give a pass for the right reasons.
-
Tomar con calma, esse.
If Bush gets the nomination, he will lose, Romney style.
Conservative I know do not 'hate' Jeb, but they will not vote for him.
Yea, it would just be another case of apathy and disgust with the Republican elites.
I would not vote against Bush, but I would not vote for him.
I don't know? Nobody can figure it out. But it does seem like the GOPe wants to lose for some reason.
-
...But not for Bush. It does suggest however that the self-described "constitutional conservatives" will give a pass for the right reasons.
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1982087_694001510659981_1242062632_n.jpg?oh=ff3b8594c4e497b72013fa1be8ffa3f2&oe=55FABB23)
-
Anyone who would stand aside and permit another eight years of Democrat rule may be expressing a lot of things politically, but conservative isn't one of them. And yes, there are a lot who say they will either vote for Hillary or not vote for either candidate should Jeb be the nominee. In the end, I very much doubt it. While Obama is a leftist and dangerous, he was and is naive and incompetent. Hillary OTOH is politically aware, guided by absolutely no moral compass, and equally as dangerous.
Over on the leftist forums, they're saying the same thing from their side. "Hillary can't win and America needs a Sanders".
Just as I wonder what on earth Sanders could say or do that would bring together voters from around the political spectrum, I also wonder the same thing about Cruz.
-
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1982087_694001510659981_1242062632_n.jpg?oh=ff3b8594c4e497b72013fa1be8ffa3f2&oe=55FABB23)
I agree with the quote. But what has that got to do with voting for Cruz?
-
I agree with the quote. But what has that got to do with voting for Cruz?
Everything! But I'm sure you won't understand that either.
-
I'm pretty sure most of us will vote for whoever the candidate ends up being - I voted for Romney, but unfortunately there will always be those purists who won't vote for a candidate they don't like.
Jeb Bush is NOT our candidate yet, he hasn't even announced. The point I was making is that, once again - we are seeing agenda driven polls pushing people to believe that Bush is the foregone candidate and that the Democrats are terrified of him.
I laugh at that premise! These polls are mostly jokes. My worry, and I'm sure the worry of many of us - is that the RNC is going to actually hire a lot of people that are saying this junk - to ADVISE them. They are going to buy these people's advice - hook, line and sinker.
Why don't we just let the PEOPLE decide who their nominee will be without trying to rig the system by steering everyone toward a certain candidate that seems to be the establishment favorite?
I don't know who is being polled, but in my everyday contacts with acquaintances and on the Internet - I haven't talked to very many people at all that want Jeb Bush as our nominee. It's just not there!
-
Everything! But I'm sure you won't understand that either.
You're right my friend. I am a tad slow on the uptake. And I imagine it's not an easy one to explain for those who support Cruz but at the same time believe he's not constitutionally eligible.
-
Tomar con calma, esse.
If Bush gets the nomination, he will lose, Romney style.
Conservative I know do not 'hate' Jeb, but they will not vote for him.
Yea, it would just be another case of apathy and disgust with the Republican elites.
I would not vote against Bush, but I would not vote for him.
I don't know? Nobody can figure it out. But it does seem like the GOPe wants to lose for some reason.
So the whole "moderate candidates can't win" meme from conservatives is a sour grapes/self-fulfilling prophecy thing.
So, if moderates take the same stance as conservatives we won't win any elections any time soon.
-
I don't know who is being polled, but in my everyday contacts with acquaintances and on the Internet - I haven't talked to very many people at all that want Jeb Bush as our nominee. It's just not there!
As some wag said who lived on the upper East Side of New York on the day after election day, 1980 "How did Reagan win? I don't know ANYBODY who voted for him."
When we're in the choir, we never hear any voices who aren't in the choir.
-
You're right my friend. I am a tad slow on the uptake. And I imagine it's not an easy one to explain for those who support Cruz but at the same time believe he's not constitutionally eligible.
Our Constitution has been misconstrued and lied about for a long time now. So long in fact that a great many have come to believe that the misconstructions and out right lies are truth. That is where we find ourselves today.
Ted Cruz is not, at the moment anyway, my first choice for our next nominee but he sure as hell comes ahead of a great many others out there on my list.
-
I'm pretty sure most of us will vote for whoever the candidate ends up being - I voted for Romney, but unfortunately there will always be those purists who won't vote for a candidate they don't like.
Jeb Bush is NOT our candidate yet, he hasn't even announced. The point I was making is that, once again - we are seeing agenda driven polls pushing people to believe that Bush is the foregone candidate and that the Democrats are terrified of him.
I laugh at that premise! These polls are mostly jokes. My worry, and I'm sure the worry of many of us - is that the RNC is going to actually hire a lot of people that are saying this junk - to ADVISE them. They are going to buy these people's advice - hook, line and sinker.
Why don't we just let the PEOPLE decide who their nominee will be without trying to rig the system by steering everyone toward a certain candidate that seems to be the establishment favorite?
I don't know who is being polled, but in my everyday contacts with acquaintances and on the Internet - I haven't talked to very many people at all that want Jeb Bush as our nominee. It's just not there!
Frankly I'm not in Jeb's camp yet either. He has a lot going for him though which is why polls still show him in the first tier. He's a successful former governor; he seems to have the ability to lead and bring in at least moderates from both sides of the aisle. He certainly has a campaign team and war chest. He can bring in the women's vote and the Hispanic vote, at least in greater percentages than recent nominees for the GOP. He can work with the other side on major issues including tax and immigration reform.
But he has some shortcomings. He is a Bush. He has already had to backtrack on an issue and any more such faux pas will not help him. He has to get through a grueling campaign and as one of the front-runners will be a target for all the wannabes.
I don't believe there's some huge conspiracy among the professional polls to put Bush in the lead just to help the Dems. These same polling organizations frequently come up with poll results on issues not terribly favorable to the liberal side of politics. But you're right. It is very early.
-
Our Constitution has been misconstrued and lied about for a long time now. So long in fact that a great many have come to believe that the misconstructions and out right lies are truth. That is where we find ourselves today.
Ted Cruz is not, at the moment anyway, my first choice for our next nominee but he sure as hell comes ahead of a great many others out there on my list.
Can't argue with you in general. I don't always agree on a USSC decision which interprets the Constitution. But from what I've seen, the left feels the same way, albeit usually on different issues. Still, I would love to hear from a Cruz supporter who also believes he's not eligible for office.
-
But it does seem like the GOPe wants to lose for some reason.
The GOPe does not pick the candidates. The candidates pick themselves, and the primary voters pick the nominee. If hard right conservatism was popular with Republicans then the candidate would be hard right. The GOP leadership just reflects the reality that conservatism is not that popular outside of talk radio.
That being said, we have never had a more conservative Congress in my lifetime. You should be happy that voters have chosen huge Republican majorities from Congress down to state legislatures, but you instead choose to elevate the GOPe to an omnipotent political juggernaut that you are pitifully unable to influence.
When the most extreme wing of conservatism leaves the GOP, it will force the GOP to move left to win a majority. Hard right conservative self deportation allows moderates to then perceive the GOP as an acceptable party to support. It does seem like the conservatives want to lose for some reason.
-
The GOPe does not pick the candidates. The candidates pick themselves, and the primary voters pick the nominee. If hard right conservatism was popular with Republicans then the candidate would be hard right. The GOP leadership just reflects the reality that conservatism is not that popular outside of talk radio.
That being said, we have never had a more conservative Congress in my lifetime. You should be happy that voters have chosen huge Republican majorities from Congress down to state legislatures, but you instead choose to elevate the GOPe to an omnipotent political juggernaut that you are pitifully unable to influence.
When the most extreme wing of conservatism leaves the GOP, it will force the GOP to move left to win a majority. Hard right conservative self deportation allows moderates to then perceive the GOP as an acceptable party to support. It does seem like the conservatives want to lose for some reason.
Quit making sense.
-
Quit making sense.
With my poor grammar, atrocious sentence structure, and sparse punctuation don't you think I'm trying? :laugh:
-
The GOPe does not pick the candidates. The candidates pick themselves, and the primary voters pick the nominee. If hard right conservatism was popular with Republicans then the candidate would be hard right. The GOP leadership just reflects the reality that conservatism is not that popular outside of talk radio.
That being said, we have never had a more conservative Congress in my lifetime. You should be happy that voters have chosen huge Republican majorities from Congress down to state legislatures, but you instead choose to elevate the GOPe to an omnipotent political juggernaut that you are pitifully unable to influence.
When the most extreme wing of conservatism leaves the GOP, it will force the GOP to move left to win a majority. Hard right conservative self deportation allows moderates to then perceive the GOP as an acceptable party to support. It does seem like the conservatives want to lose for some reason.
And if we had a truly fair nominating process the nominees would be vastly different than the ones we have seen in recent times.
Perhaps those huge majorities from congress down to the state legislatures are representative of the fact that Conservatives have finally managed to break through the MSM filter they have been fighting for years and years!
-
And if we had a truly fair nominating process the nominees would be vastly different than the ones we have seen in recent times.
Perhaps those huge majorities from congress down to the state legislatures are representative of the fact that Conservatives have finally managed to break through the MSM filter they have been fighting for years and years!
In one sentence you call the system rigged and unfair toward conservatives and in the very next one you claim that Republican victories are conservative wins.
-
And if we had a truly fair nominating process the nominees would be vastly different than the ones we have seen in recent times.
Perhaps those huge majorities from congress down to the state legislatures are representative of the fact that Conservatives have finally managed to break through the MSM filter they have been fighting for years and years!
What is more fair than anyone wanting to run for office can do so? Conservatives have always been in Congress and in state legislatures. Even today the largest caucus in Congress is the Republican Study Committee, conservative by any definition.
-
In one sentence you call the system rigged and unfair toward conservatives and in the very next one you claim that Republican victories are conservative wins.
That's because the PRESIDENTIAL nominating process and congressional and state legislative elections are VERY different things!
-
What is more fair than anyone wanting to run for office can do so? Conservatives have always been in Congress and in state legislatures. Even today the largest caucus in Congress is the Republican Study Committee, conservative by any definition.
Nothing wrong with the first part but the process under which that happens is hugely flawed IMHO!
-
Nothing wrong with the first part but the process under which that happens is hugely flawed IMHO!
Well, there are GOP candidates running representing every faction of the GOP, including the libertarian faction. If anyone could complain about a stacked deck it would be the Dems. I know some don't like open primaries, but only one of the early states is open. Some would like the primaries all to be held on the same date. In the end though, it's still a popularity contest, money is the driver, and I have no reason to believe at the end of the day, the result would be any different. You may have evidence to the contrary.
-
That's because the PRESIDENTIAL nominating process and congressional and state legislative elections are VERY different things!
No, it's because you want to fluctuate your argument to suit your preconceived notion that conservatives don't win because the system is rigged against them, so you would have us believe that (once elected) the conservatives who win at the State level and become the people charged with setting up and running State Presidential primaries, turn around and rig those Primaries against conservatives.
Is that about right?
-
No, it's because you want to fluctuate your argument to suit your preconceived notion that conservatives don't win because the system is rigged against them, so you would have us believe that (once elected) the conservatives who win at the State level and become the people charged with setting up and running State Presidential primaries, turn around and rig those Primaries against conservatives.
Is that about right?
NO it isn't about right! Not even close to right! The party establishment sets up the primary process NOT the legislatures of the several states.
-
NO it isn't about right! Not even close to right! The party establishment sets up the primary process NOT the legislatures of the several states.
So then, how does the establishment stop voters from voting for conservatives at the State primaries?
-
So then, how does the establishment stop voters from voting for conservatives at the State primaries?
They don't! But they can and do set up the ORDER of the primaries in such a way as to ensure that their preferred candidate has the best chance of winning.
-
They don't! But they can and do set up the ORDER of the primaries in such a way as to ensure that their preferred candidate has the best chance of winning.
Everything is someone else's fault, isn't it Bigun?
-
Everything is someone else's fault, isn't it Bigun?
It has nothing to do with fault and you damned well know that!
-
It has nothing to do with fault and you damned well know that!
You're blaming the GOP for scheduling primaries in a way that they puts conservatives at a disadvantage, or maybe for not scheduling them in a way that gives an advantage to conservatives. Either way, whatever or whichever way you say it, what you say over and over in this forum is that conservatives can't win because the GOP won't let them.
That's placing fault (or making an excuse) for the conservatives' inability to win national primaries on the fact that the winning party, well... wins.
If conservatives were truly as strong as you claim that they are, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?
-
Conservatism is exhibit #1 for adult denial. Perpetual victimhood. Blaming "the other."
-
Conservatism is exhibit #1 for adult denial. Perpetual victimhood. Blaming "the other."
That's good to know....never thought of myself as a victim.. :smokin:
-
Conservatism is exhibit #1 for adult denial. Perpetual victimhood. Blaming "the other."
That is an absolutely perfect description of Obama and Michelle. That is exactly what they are and what they do. They must be some kind of super-Conservatives.
Me? A victim? Yea, I guess I can see that. We are all victims of Liberalism.
The difference is that when I feel like a victim I do not hire Al Sharpton and his goons to burn down businesses and kill Jews, like some people do.
-
That is an absolutely perfect description of Obama and Michelle. That is exactly what they are and what they do. They must be some kind of super-Conservatives.
Me? A victim? Yea, I guess I can see that. We are all victims of Liberalism.
The difference is that when I feel like a victim I do not hire Al Sharpton and his goons to burn down businesses and kill Jews, like some people do.
And anyone who thinks that there isn't PLENTY of liberalism to go around in the Republican party is delusional as well!
-
Conservatism is exhibit #1 for adult denial. Perpetual victimhood. Blaming "the other."
You call it whatever you like!
For me it is having actually been IN the game long enough to finally figure out how it's played!
-
They don't! But they can and do set up the ORDER of the primaries in such a way as to ensure that their preferred candidate has the best chance of winning.
As you pointed out earlier, I'm slow on the uptake, but I don't follow. In 2012 the early state primaries were pretty well split among four candidates. Yes, by Super Tuesday it was all Romney. At least in the current order, small state voters can have an impact. If the primaries were all held on the same date, the candidate with the most money would have a completely unbeatable advantage, and all he/she would have to do was to spend it all in the large states. Would that be preferable?
Other than complaining that the current system doesn't work, what would you do to improve it?
-
Conservatism is exhibit #1 for adult denial. Perpetual victimhood. Blaming "the other."
You're painting with a very broad brush. I certainly see liberalism as perpetual victimhood, since their entire philosophy is directed toward defining everyone as a victim of sorts and blaming society, money, race and conservatism as the culprits.
-
As you pointed out earlier, I'm slow on the uptake, but I don't follow. In 2012 the early state primaries were pretty well split among four candidates. Yes, by Super Tuesday it was all Romney. At least in the current order, small state voters can have an impact. If the primaries were all held on the same date, the candidate with the most money would have a completely unbeatable advantage, and all he/she would have to do was to spend it all in the large states. Would that be preferable?
Other than complaining that the current system doesn't work, what would you do to improve it?
I would spread the early primaries around to different regions of the country in a manner much better than it's done today.
I would also do what I could to ensure that actual republicans picked our presidential candidate!
-
Eating our own makes for a very poor diet. :tongue2:
-
I would spread the early primaries around to different regions of the country in a manner much better than it's done today.
I would also do what I could to ensure that actual republicans picked our presidential candidate!
He asked what you would do to improve the system, and you responded "make it better".
That's not very specific, nor is spreading "the early primaries around" very specific.
How would you suggest that we went about ensuring that only "actual Republicans" voted in primaries. I can register as anything I want before a primary, then vote for whoever I want in a general election.
Here are the States that hold open primaries:
Alabama
Arizona (Semi-closed, with primaries open only to unaffiliated or unrepresented voters)
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii (Open primary for state, local, and congressional races; caucus system for presidential races.)
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
Where's the problem?
-
I would spread the early primaries around to different regions of the country in a manner much better than it's done today.
I would also do what I could to ensure that actual republicans picked our presidential candidate!
The primaries start with the Midwest, Northeast, and South. Then it continues all around the Country. I think it's pretty well spread around now. Republicans in large states like California complain that because of the makeup of the primary with small states participating early, the process is over before they can weigh in.
As for the actual Republicans, it's a fair point that there are a handful of open primaries. A lot of voters express concerns about that. But let's assume that in 2012 (and 2008 for that matter), there were no open primaries and all of the primaries were held on the same day. Do you think the results would have been different?
-
The primaries start with the Midwest, Northeast, and South. Then it continues all around the Country. I think it's pretty well spread around now. Republicans in large states like California complain that because of the makeup of the primary with small states participating early, the process is over before they can weigh in.
As for the actual Republicans, it's a fair point that there are a handful of open primaries. A lot of voters express concerns about that. But let's assume that in 2012 (and 2008 for that matter), there were no open primaries and all of the primaries were held on the same day. Do you think the results would have been different?
I don't know but what I do know is that letting a few NE liberal states go first every time hasn't worked well for conservatives.
-
Frankly I'm not in Jeb's camp yet either. He has a lot going for him though which is why polls still show him in the first tier. He's a successful former governor; he seems to have the ability to lead and bring in at least moderates from both sides of the aisle. He certainly has a campaign team and war chest. He can bring in the women's vote and the Hispanic vote, at least in greater percentages than recent nominees for the GOP. He can work with the other side on major issues including tax and immigration reform.
But he has some shortcomings. He is a Bush. He has already had to backtrack on an issue and any more such faux pas will not help him. He has to get through a grueling campaign and as one of the front-runners will be a target for all the wannabes.
I don't believe there's some huge conspiracy among the professional polls to put Bush in the lead just to help the Dems. These same polling organizations frequently come up with poll results on issues not terribly favorable to the liberal side of politics. But you're right. It is very early.
Another negative in the Bush column: he lacks an upbeat personality. Obama had it.
That's a vital component for a candidate in the shallow political seas Americans are currently navigating.
He seems dour and often sighs before answering a press question. What's that about? He acts as if it pains him to answer a question.
-
You're painting with a very broad brush. I certainly see liberalism as perpetual victimhood, since their entire philosophy is directed toward defining everyone as a victim of sorts and blaming society, money, race and conservatism as the culprits.
Let me narrow that brush.
Conservatism is, by the very definition of the word, the idea of "preserving" things. So generally speaking Conservatism opposes change. Now (all these of course are strictly my opinions) Constitutional Conservatism is the idea of preserving the Constitution as the primary focus of governance and a tool to control the government. Social conservatism tries to use the government as a tool to try ans stave off societal changes, and that's when things get ugly.
Societal changes are about as normal a process as the seasons, and societies tend to change by becoming more liberal (in a manner of speaking) or by knocking down barriers and taboos. When Social Conservatives try to enlist the help of government to stop these changes from happening, and run afoul of the law, as was the case with Prop 8, the definition of what is conservatism gets all unclear and muddled.
Being a Constitutional conservative is easy since all you have to do is agree with whether or not the solution to any issue was arrived at in a Constitutional manner, with little concern over what the actual issue is. After all, if the Constitution says it is OK to do it, then no laws can be enacted to the contrary, so just move along and learn to live with it.
Social conservatives appear to not be able to do that and appear to play that victim card a lot.
"Attacks" on religion... "attacks" on the traditional family... "attacks" on traditional marriage are not so much attacks, as they are societal changes that social conservatives oppose, pushing back against them.
At the end of the day, Christianity will survive as will the traditional family and traditional marriage. We will probably see changes in religion with some denominations being more liberal and accepting than others, but religion will survive. There will be both traditional families and non-traditional families, but families will survive, and there will be both traditional and non-traditional marriages, but marriage will survive.
The only thing that I truly, truly fear is the possible results of our class warfare and racial divisions. They are fabricated by politicians as a tool to achieve power.
A house divided cannot stand.
-
Another negative in the Bush column: he lacks an upbeat personality. Obama had it.
That's a vital component for a candidate in the shallow political seas Americans are currently navigating.
He seems dour and often sighs before answering a press question. What's that about? He acts as if it pains him to answer a question.
Indeed, every one of the candidates has some negative. I agree Bush doesn't display an exciting persona in front of cameras. He tends to run questions around in his mind before formulating a response. He has neither the wit nor the quickness in front of interviewers as did Reagan. I don't think his brother was particularly adept in that area either. I'm not sure yet who fits the bill. I do prefer a governor for the experience. But I also want someone who can convey his or her agenda effectively.
-
And anyone who thinks that there isn't PLENTY of liberalism to go around in the Republican party is delusional as well!
Aren't you one of the those, often posting that conservatism is the victim of some powerful force? Like the oft cited GOPe for example?
IOW conservatives/conservatism just cannot seem to get a break, because of powerful forces CONSPIRING against it.
-
I don't know but what I do know is that letting a few NE liberal states go first every time hasn't worked well for conservatives.
New Hampshire is the only early NE state. All the rest are from the Midwest, South, Southwest, until Super Tuesday.
-
Let me narrow that brush.
Conservatism is, by the very definition of the word, the idea of "preserving" things. So generally speaking Conservatism opposes change. Now (all these of course are strictly my opinions) Constitutional Conservatism is the idea of preserving the Constitution as the primary focus of governance and a tool to control the government. Social conservatism tries to use the government as a tool to try ans stave off societal changes, and that's when things get ugly.
There are several variations of conservatism, but generally speaking conservatism doesn't oppose change. Rather it demands a slow, thoughtful approach. I know that GOP moderates are painted as either liberal or at best, not conservative. Again though, moderation is the epitome of conservatism.
Societal changes are about as normal a process as the seasons, and societies tend to change by becoming more liberal (in a manner of speaking) or by knocking down barriers and taboos. When Social Conservatives try to enlist the help of government to stop these changes from happening, and run afoul of the law, as was the case with Prop 8, the definition of what is conservatism gets all unclear and muddled.
But wasn't Prop 8 a popular and certainly constitutional way to push back at the perception of government's interference with society? And it passed in ultra-liberal California.
Being a Constitutional conservative is easy since all you have to do is agree with whether or not the solution to any issue was arrived at in a Constitutional manner, with little concern over what the actual issue is. After all, if the Constitution says it is OK to do it, then no laws can be enacted to the contrary, so just move along and learn to live with it.
Conservatism is about preserving the Constitution, though many who call themselves constitutional conservatives decry the efforts at preserving the 14th Amendment in spite of rather plain language. Perhaps the biggest mistake many of them make is assuming the intentions of the Founding Fathers. They were simply not in agreement on much, and the Constitution arose out of bitter disputes, but at least a willingness to compromise. The entire document was one compromise after another, and still, many at the time had very different ideas as to both implications and meanings.
Social conservatives appear to not be able to do that and appear to play that victim card a lot.
"Attacks" on religion... "attacks" on the traditional family... "attacks" on traditional marriage are not so much attacks, as they are societal changes that social conservatives oppose, pushing back against them.
At the end of the day, Christianity will survive as will the traditional family and traditional marriage. We will probably see changes in religion with some denominations being more liberal and accepting than others, but religion will survive. There will be both traditional families and non-traditional families, but families will survive, and there will be both traditional and non-traditional marriages, but marriage will survive.
But aren't liberals just as guilty? They live by preaching fear. It would be nice if social change would take place in the social arena without government making those changes for us. If the owner of a business has a religious objection to either abortion or gay marriage, public officials threaten them with sanctions. Chick fil-A and Hobby Lobby were ridiculed by liberal mayors and told their businesses were not welcome in their cities. Some fear is legitimate.
The only thing that I truly, truly fear is the possible results of our class warfare and racial divisions. They are fabricated by politicians as a tool to achieve power.
A house divided cannot stand.
I could not agree more with you. And unfortunately our House is very divided at present.
-
New Hampshire is the only early NE state.
"One" is included in the definition of "few." Just sayin...
-
"One" is included in the definition of "few." Just sayin...
Yeah, one is singular; the other plural.
-
Yeah, one is singular; the other plural.
I could argue the defining quality of "few" is "small quantity or number thereof" as in few, not many.
"One" would therefore qualify within that definition of "few," not many.
Just playin around. Of course this illustrates why we need lawyers, backup copies, etc.
-
I could argue the defining quality of "few" is "small quantity or number thereof" as in few, not many.
"One" would therefore qualify within that definition of "few," not many.
Just playin around. Of course this illustrates why we need lawyers, backup copies, etc.
Of course the poster who said "letting a few liberal NE states go first" wasn't thinking of just one... :whistle:
-
Of course the poster who said "letting a few liberal NE states go first" wasn't thinking of just one... :whistle:
And his position would have been made stronger, had he said "just one NE state," instead of "few."
It is weird sitting in California, which in recent years has written off. We gave America Nixon and Reagan, and provided retirement residences for Eisenhower and Ford.
Since that write-off, the GOP has lost the popular vote 5 of 6 times. Makes me wonder what came first, the write-off or the loses?
The GOP is increasingly defining itself in regional and religious terms. Heard much about Governors Martinez or Sandoval lately?
I believe a stronger GOP could be built, with greater recognition of the entire country and its citizens.
-
I'm pretty sure most of us will vote for whoever the candidate ends up being - I voted for Romney, but unfortunately there will always be those purists who won't vote for a candidate they don't like.
Jeb Bush is NOT our candidate yet, he hasn't even announced. The point I was making is that, once again - we are seeing agenda driven polls pushing people to believe that Bush is the foregone candidate and that the Democrats are terrified of him.
I laugh at that premise! These polls are mostly jokes. My worry, and I'm sure the worry of many of us - is that the RNC is going to actually hire a lot of people that are saying this junk - to ADVISE them. They are going to buy these people's advice - hook, line and sinker.
Why don't we just let the PEOPLE decide who their nominee will be without trying to rig the system by steering everyone toward a certain candidate that seems to be the establishment favorite?
I don't know who is being polled, but in my everyday contacts with acquaintances and on the Internet - I haven't talked to very many people at all that want Jeb Bush as our nominee. It's just not there!
I think the left wants Bush to be the nominee.. As for Cruz, if he is the nominee, I just don't see him getting the independent vote.. Flame suit on.
-
I think the left wants Bush to be the nominee.. As for Cruz, if he is the nominee, I just don't see him getting the independent vote.. Flame suit on.
The oft repeated claim is that unless the GOP has a hard right candidate, millions of voters will stay home.
Over and over if the hard right doesn't prevail in primaries, something is rigged, etc. They mistakenly call closed primaries, open primaries.
They would never admit that IF the candidate is hard right, that millions of voters won't vote for him. That would be the Barry Goldwater scenario, which the GOP denies. It happened before, and it could happen again. And it will if polls are accurate.
The biggest voter bloc is Independent. They are all over the map, but the one thing they are NOT is hard right. If they were, they would be in the GOP.
-
New Hampshire is the only early NE state. All the rest are from the Midwest, South, Southwest, until Super Tuesday.
Texas voted in May four years ago. It will vote in early March this time around. We'll see if that makes a difference.
-
The oft repeated claim is that unless the GOP has a hard right candidate, millions of voters will stay home.
Over and over if the hard right doesn't prevail in primaries, something is rigged, etc. They mistakenly call closed primaries, open primaries.
They would never admit that IF the candidate is hard right, that millions of voters won't vote for him. That would be the Barry Goldwater scenario, which the GOP denies. It happened before, and it could happen again. And it will if polls are accurate.
The biggest voter bloc is Independent. They are all over the map, but the one thing they are NOT is hard right. If they were, they would be in the GOP.
Goldwater was thrown to the wolves in a year when there was no possibility of ANY republican winning right after Kennedy was assassinated and the left wing of the GOP has been using it to their advantage ever since!
"See! That's what happens when you nominate a CONSERVATIVE!" It's TOTAL BS!
-
And his position would have been made stronger, had he said "just one NE state," instead of "few."
It is weird sitting in California, which in recent years has written off. We gave America Nixon and Reagan, and provided retirement residences for Eisenhower and Ford.
Since that write-off, the GOP has lost the popular vote 5 of 6 times. Makes me wonder what came first, the write-off or the loses?
The GOP is increasingly defining itself in regional and religious terms. Heard much about Governors Martinez or Sandoval lately?
I believe a stronger GOP could be built, with greater recognition of the entire country and its citizens.
I'm missing your point about what the poster may have been thinking. He did believe that the NE area was overrepresented in the early primaries. It's not worth debating.
We might have heard about Martinez and Sandoval had they expressed an interest in running. And Nevada is a relatively early primary state.
I'd like to see a stronger Republican Party too. There are several factions within the Party, and I believe they are all represented in an already overpopulated group of hopefuls. But the Religious Right cannot be written off any more than the fiscal and national security conservatives. Nor for that matter can the increasingly growing libertarian bloc.
But I at least agree that the GOP is going to have to address some significant issues including immigration, a growing wealth gap, tax policy, an out-of-control debt, energy, and US foreign policy in a world far from that in Reagan's time. And they should reject being dragged into racial, women's equality and LGBT issues.
Within the Party, Republicans should keep away from any more divide and conquer. Attempting to turn the term "conservative" into some disparaging term is doing little to move the Party ahead. The Republican Party is the conservative party regardless of differences of opinion on specific issues.
-
Texas voted in May four years ago. It will vote in early March this time around. We'll see if that makes a difference.
And with two candidates. It will be interesting to see how Texas handles that.
-
And with two candidates. It will be interesting to see how Texas handles that.
Yes it will! And that points out yet another MAJOR problems conservatives have! They all want to go to the same place but all want to be the driver of the bus that takes us there as well resulting in NONE of them getting near the driver's seat.
-
Well I just hope there is no Todd Akin moment like there was in 2012..
-
I think the left wants Bush to be the nominee.. As for Cruz, if he is the nominee, I just don't see him getting the independent vote.. Flame suit on.
If Cruz cannot get the independent vote, why would the left want Bush, who would certainly be able to cut into voting blocs Democrats are counting on?
-
If Cruz cannot get the independent vote, why would the left want Bush, who would certainly be able to cut into voting blocs Democrats are counting on?
They want Bush to be the nominee cause of the last name Bush.. Guilt by association.
-
Well I just hope there is no Todd Akin moment like there was in 2012..
Yet another good example of a "moment" manufactured by the media!
-
Well I just hope there is no Todd Akin moment like there was in 2012..
There will be, just as there will be with the Democrats. The difference comes in the reporting of it.
They want Bush to be the nominee cause of the last name Bush.. Guilt by association.
And Clinton doesn't have the same issues? Still, Bush would be eating into the blocs the Dems are counting on. I believe they would much rather have a Republican candidate who doesn't endanger those blocs.
-
There will be, just as there will be with the Democrats. The difference comes in the reporting of it.
And Clinton doesn't have the same issues? Still, Bush would be eating into the blocs the Dems are counting on. I believe they would much rather have a Republican candidate who doesn't endanger those blocs.
Remember Clinton is trying to run as the first woman President..
-
Remember Clinton is trying to run as the first woman President..
Yes, but she still has far more baggage than does Bush. And the left doesn't really like her, but unlike some on our side of the aisle who demand purity on the issues, have no problem with supporting Clinton if she's the nominee. As the left would say, "any Democrat is better than any Republican".
-
There are several variations of conservatism, but generally speaking conservatism doesn't oppose change. Rather it demands a slow, thoughtful approach. I know that GOP moderates are painted as either liberal or at best, not conservative. Again though, moderation is the epitome of conservatism.
And there you have it, conservatives wish to control or engineer change to suit their ideals and/or control the way societal changes happen.
Societal changes happen, they're not engineered. They are cheered and promoted, but they happen at their own pace. Most here will argue that the avalanching support for same-sex marriage in the nation and growing acceptance of homosexuality as well as the vocal opposition to those who oppose both is engineered, but I don't think that's the case. I think that's society trying to send out the message that we, as a society, really want to move on and call this argument settled. The scales have tipped and it's time to end this argument, which is what I believe is exactly what the SCOTUS is about to do.
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ycf4akubeuwcyhgyxljyig.png)
But wasn't Prop 8 a popular and certainly constitutional way to push back at the perception of government's interference with society? And it passed in ultra-liberal California.
It's a hard argument to make that something that was found to be unconstitutional by the Courts was in fact Constitutional. Prop 8 was the people demanding that the government interfere with the natural flow of societal change and it was found to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Marriage, in the eyes of the States, is a secular contract and the Courts apparently agreed that the voters can't vote away the rights of people to be protected under that Constitutional Clause simply because of a general disapproval or animus toward a group of individuals. In fact, no amount of votes can remove one single individual's constitutionally-protected rights.
Prop 8 was what the framers described as "excesses of Democracy" during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that thing which could lead to unlimited tyranny by the majority. Any law can pass, no matter how unconstitutional, so long as enough people vote for it. Jefferson agreed, reminding everyone that "elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
Conservatism is about preserving the Constitution, though many who call themselves constitutional conservatives decry the efforts at preserving the 14th Amendment in spite of rather plain language. Perhaps the biggest mistake many of them make is assuming the intentions of the Founding Fathers. They were simply not in agreement on much, and the Constitution arose out of bitter disputes, but at least a willingness to compromise. The entire document was one compromise after another, and still, many at the time had very different ideas as to both implications and meanings.
The XIV Amendment is a topic for a much wider discussion.
But aren't liberals just as guilty? They live by preaching fear. It would be nice if social change would take place in the social arena without government making those changes for us. If the owner of a business has a religious objection to either abortion or gay marriage, public officials threaten them with sanctions. Chick fil-A and Hobby Lobby were ridiculed by liberal mayors and told their businesses were not welcome in their cities. Some fear is legitimate.
It is however a far improvement from being fed to the lions, don't you think?
By the same token, religious leaders are standing at the pulpit basically saying that homosexuals are pedophiles, abominations, and unnatural, so there are no clean hands here. I will say that we should really refrain with using that broad brush you spoke about earlier and define all liberals and homosexuals by the actions of a portion of them. That's as wrong as liberals defining all Christians by the actions of groups like The Westboro Baptists and their ilk.
I think that the issue of bakeries etc will be eventually settled as it works its way through the Courts. I am encouraged by the Court decisions on Chik fil-A and Hobby Lobby because they may give us a clear insight into where this Court stands.
I could not agree more with you. And unfortunately our House is very divided at present.
-
Luis wrote above:
[[ A house divided cannot stand...]]
A "diverse" house (ethnically and racially diverse) will ALWAYS be a "divided" house.
What does that portend for the future?
-
Luis wrote above:
[[ A house divided cannot stand...]]
A "diverse" house (ethnically and racially diverse) will ALWAYS be a "divided" house.
What does that portend for the future?
We've always been a diverse house. There isn't a time in the history of this nation when that hasn't been the case, and there hasn't been a time when someone has predicted die consequences for the Republic because of that.
"I am perfectly of your mind, that measures of great Temper are necessary with the Germans: and am not without Apprehensions, that thro’ their indiscretion or Ours, or both, great disorders and inconveniences may one day arise among us; Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation, and as Ignorance is often attended with Credulity when Knavery would mislead it, and with Suspicion when Honesty would set it right; and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain. Their own Clergy have very little influence over the people; who seem to take an uncommon pleasure in abusing and discharging the Minister on every trivial occasion. Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it; and as Kolben says of the young Hottentots, that they are not esteemed men till they have shewn their manhood by beating their mothers, so these seem to think themselves not free, till they can feel their liberty in abusing and insulting their Teachers. Thus they are under no restraint of Ecclesiastical Government; They behave, however, submissively enough at present to the Civil Government which I wish they may continue to do: For I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties; Few of their children in the Country learn English; they import many Books from Germany; and of the six printing houses in the Province, two are entirely German, two half German half English, and but two entirely English; They have one German News-paper, and one half German. Advertisements intended to be general are now printed in Dutch and English; the Signs in our Streets have inscriptions in both languages, and in some places only German: They begin of late to make all their Bonds and other legal Writings in their own Language, which (though I think it ought not to be) are allowed good in our Courts, where the German Business so encreases that there is continual need of Interpreters; and I suppose in a few years they will be also necessary in the Assembly, to tell one half of our Legislators what the other half say; In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious." - Benjamin Franklin, letter to Peter Collinson
-
And there you have it, conservatives wish to control or engineer change to suit their ideals and/or control the way societal changes happen.
Societal changes happen, they're not engineered. They are cheered and promoted, but they happen at their own pace. Most here will argue that the avalanching support for same-sex marriage in the nation and growing acceptance of homosexuality as well as the vocal opposition to those who oppose both is engineered, but I don't think that's the case. I think that's society trying to send out the message that we, as a society, really want to move on and call this argument settled. The scales have tipped and it's time to end this argument, which is what I believe is exactly what the SCOTUS is about to do.
Many changes are very much engineered. Obamacare was a poorly thought out hodgepodge which was pushed into legislation not only too quickly but without half the Congress permitted to participate. Colorado marijuana law, again not well thought out, has spawned seller's remorse all the way to the statehouse. Efforts to equalize the military with women in areas they had never served have created numerous problems. The whole LGBT push even in elementary schools is yet another absolutely absurd, poorly thought out effort to equalize everyone...even in the bathrooms.
Without conservatism to slow down the escalation of "change" in the Nation, I can't imagine where we would be today. OTOH I only have to look at the leftist agenda to see.
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ycf4akubeuwcyhgyxljyig.png)
That particular societal change was forced by the courts. Some such changes are good; some not so good. But society followed the forced gay marriage laws, and it was obvious that many states either didn't permit it or had alternatives.
It's a hard argument to make that something that was found to be unconstitutional by the Courts was in fact Constitutional. Prop 8 was the people demanding that the government interfere with the natural flow of societal change and it was found to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Marriage, in the eyes of the States, is a secular contract and the Courts apparently agreed that the voters can't vote away the rights of people to be protected under that Constitutional Clause simply because of a general disapproval or animus toward a group of individuals. In fact, no amount of votes can remove one single individual's constitutionally-protected rights.
Prop 8 was what the framers described as "excesses of Democracy" during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that thing which could lead to unlimited tyranny by the majority. Any law can pass, no matter how unconstitutional, so long as enough people vote for it. Jefferson agreed, reminding everyone that "elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
A few points. First, the proposition was to amend the state constitution to better define marriage, and had nothing to do with the federal court decision to come later. Second, it was passed by a margin of more than a million votes in arguably one of the most liberal states in the Union. Proposition 13 saved a lot of homeowners from financial devastation during a time of quickly growing home values. As for "excess democracy", most state constitutions provide for just such a means to amend their constitutions. We don't have that on the federal level because we have Article V which provides essentially the same thing albeit on a state level in a republican form of government.
By the same token, religious leaders are standing at the pulpit basically saying that homosexuals are pedophiles, abominations, and unnatural, so there are no clean hands here. I will say that we should really refrain with using that broad brush you spoke about earlier and define all liberals and homosexuals by the actions of a portion of them. That's as wrong as liberals defining all Christians by the actions of groups like The Westboro Baptists and their ilk.
I think that the issue of bakeries etc will be eventually settled as it works its way through the Courts. I am encouraged by the Court decisions on Chik fil-A and Hobby Lobby because they may give us a clear insight into where this Court stands.
Couldn't agree more. Nor should we be making laws to prevent such speech, or worse to make laws based on such speech.
-
Many changes are very much engineered. Obamacare was a poorly thought out hodgepodge which was pushed into legislation not only too quickly but without half the Congress permitted to participate. Colorado marijuana law, again not well thought out, has spawned seller's remorse all the way to the statehouse. Efforts to equalize the military with women in areas they had never served have created numerous problems. The whole LGBT push even in elementary schools is yet another absolutely absurd, poorly thought out effort to equalize everyone...even in the bathrooms.
Without conservatism to slow down the escalation of "change" in the Nation, I can't imagine where we would be today. OTOH I only have to look at the leftist agenda to see.
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ycf4akubeuwcyhgyxljyig.png)
That particular societal change was forced by the courts. Some such changes are good; some not so good. But society followed the forced gay marriage laws, and it was obvious that many states either didn't permit it or had alternatives.
A few points. First, the proposition was to amend the state constitution to better define marriage, and had nothing to do with the federal court decision to come later. Second, it was passed by a margin of more than a million votes in arguably one of the most liberal states in the Union. Proposition 13 saved a lot of homeowners from financial devastation during a time of quickly growing home values. As for "excess democracy", most state constitutions provide for just such a means to amend their constitutions. We don't have that on the federal level because we have Article V which provides essentially the same thing albeit on a state level in a republican form of government.
Couldn't agree more. Nor should we be making laws to prevent such speech, or worse to make laws based on such speech.
Obamacare wasn't a societal change, that's bad legislation. Societal changes are paradigm shifts followed by supporting legislation. Support for marijuana decriminalization has been growing steadily in the U.S. for w past two decades, where now a slight majority supports it. The majority in Colorado is greater than in the U.S. Colorado decriminalization was organic in nature. I support laws that favor more freedom over ones that restrict freedom. That "seller's remorse" (all anecdotal evidence aside) comes from people who opposed decriminalization to begin with. If Coloradoans really come to regret the laws, the move to reverse the law will be equally as organic. Colorado decrimalization of laws was the polar opposite of Prop 8.
The bathroom thing is stupidity and overacting that's not widespread. It will die down. Don't allow yourself to be driven like cattle by D who wish you to think the forest ugly by directing your attention the presence of a few scrub pines
The acceptance of homosexuality was not driven by the Courts. As much as the idea that we are hapless, brainless sheep fits the Social conservative narrative, we are not. That's not to say that there aren't any hapless, brainless sheep, but we can't continue to both celebrate the American Spirit and call us a bunch of idiots driven around by our noses. The acceptance of homosexual behavior has been growing for decades, again an organic change. If anything, the Courts has followed society rather than the other way around as you have suggested.
This quote is indicative of what I see being wrong with Social Conservatism in general:
Without conservatism to slow down the escalation of "change" in the Nation, I can't imagine where we would be today.
You are only able to imagine the possibility of things being worse "without conservatism" being there to "slow down" organic changes, but the fact is that being at a better place than where we are today is an equally real possibility. In fact, I would say that, more than any other reason, the conservatism/liberalism power struggle is what has driven our nation to the sad state where it finds itself today.
Finally, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land whatever law, poll initiative or proposition may be enacted, if challenged in Federal Courts, the Constitution will prevail. There's a vast sea of difference between Prop 8 and Prop 13, Prop 13 didn't seek to diminish the rights and privileges of any segment of the population, it was financial in nature. Again, while States have the power to enact laws, those laws cannot be conflictive with the Supreme Law of the land or diminish the rights and privileges of all the people.
-
Obamacare wasn't a societal change, that's bad legislation.
And the purpose of conservatism in the political arena is to slow down such bad legislation. Democrats would not permit a single amendment designed to mitigate some of the impacts.
Societal changes are paradigm shifts followed by supporting legislation. Support for marijuana decriminalization has been growing steadily in the U.S. for w past two decades, where now a slight majority supports it. The majority in Colorado is greater than in the U.S. Colorado decriminalization was organic in nature. I support laws that favor more freedom over ones that restrict freedom. That "seller's remorse" (all anecdotal evidence aside) comes from people who opposed decriminalization to begin with. If Coloradoans really come to regret the laws, the move to reverse the law will be equally as organic. Colorado decrimalization of laws was the polar opposite of Prop 8.
Colorado's "sellers' remorse" comes from the governor who signed it into law. It was signed into law, not after careful consideration of the potential problems, but in spite of those problems:
"He also went on to warn other states, who are considering following in Colorado’s wake, that doing so may be too hastily, as he believes more time is required to sort through the data and realize any possible long-term consequences"
The bathroom thing is stupidity and overacting that's not widespread. It will die down. Don't allow yourself to be driven like cattle by D who wish you to think the forest ugly by directing your attention the presence of a few scrub pines
How many examples of hasty liberal actions are necessary to make a point. The point simply is that most liberal initiatives put into place are hastily done with little concern for the problems in the future. And the bathroom wasn't my only example.
The acceptance of homosexuality was not driven by the Courts. As much as the idea that we are hapless, brainless sheep fits the Social conservative narrative, we are not. That's not to say that there aren't any hapless, brainless sheep, but we can't continue to both celebrate the American Spirit and call us a bunch of idiots driven around by our noses. The acceptance of homosexual behavior has been growing for decades, again an organic change. If anything, the Courts has followed society rather than the other way around as you have suggested.
I'm not sure how the courts followed society in the case of gay marriage, since they have spent their efforts finding state after state illegally withholding gay marriage, when the populace of those states were against redefining marriage. That doesn't sound like the courts following society to me. Even Obama, hardly a conservative, was against gay marriage until his reelection campaign in 2012. Now to even suggest one is against gay marriage is close to a hate crime.
This quote is indicative of what I see being wrong with Social Conservatism in general:
Without conservatism to slow down the escalation of "change" in the Nation, I can't imagine where we would be today.
Well I'm hardly a social conservative with respect to homosexuals, abortion, or other such issues, and yes I believe that. Many liberals and even moderates believe that conservatism centers around social issues, which is their mistake.
You are only able to imagine the possibility of things being worse "without conservatism" being there to "slow down" organic changes, but the fact is that being at a better place than where we are today is an equally real possibility. In fact, I would say that, more than any other reason, the conservatism/liberalism power struggle is what has driven our nation to the sad state where it finds itself today.
Perhaps, but I can look at places like Venezuela, Cuba, China before it discovered capitalism, the Soviet Union, North Korea, all which looked at communism as the solution to poverty and see us moving in that direction. And hopefully no one will confuse communism with conservatism. Are efforts to slow down Hollywood's attempts to push everything from violence to drugs to sex bad? Again, conservatism isn't about stopping change, but slowing it down to envision the problems that change will bring. That's not a bad thing!
Finally, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land whatever law, poll initiative or proposition may be enacted, if challenged in Federal Courts, the Constitution will prevail. There's a vast sea of difference between Prop 8 and Prop 13, Prop 13 didn't seek to diminish the rights and privileges of any segment of the population, it was financial in nature. Again, while States have the power to enact laws, those laws cannot be conflictive with the Supreme Law of the land or diminish the rights and privileges of all the people.
Agreed with respect to the Constitution being the supreme law of the Land. But Prop 8 didn't seek to diminish the rights of anyone, but simply sought to define the term "marriage". Liberals will still decry the enactment of Prop 13 as taking away monies from the poor. With respect to the gay marriage issue, prior to the recent court decisions, the only two defining federal court decisions involving gay marriage (I'm aware of) were a USSC decision refusing to take it on as "not involving a federal issue", and an 8th Circuit decision upholding a state ban on gay marriage.
That decision opened up the discussion of a state's legitimate concern for "discriminating". Discrimination by a government is not illegal per se, but when a case is brought, that governing body must show a compelling state interest. BTW, I'm a proponent the 14th Amendment, which really is the underpinning of the argument here.
-
And the purpose of conservatism in the political arena is to slow down such bad legislation. Democrats would not permit a single amendment designed to mitigate some of the impacts.[/b]
We're discussing conservatism as it applies to societal changes. Obamacare does no fit that bill, so let's move away from it.
Colorado's "sellers' remorse" comes from the governor who signed it into law. It was signed into law, not after careful consideration of the potential problems, but in spite of those problems:
"He also went on to warn other states, who are considering following in Colorado’s wake, that doing so may be too hastily, as he believes more time is required to sort through the data and realize any possible long-term consequences"
How many examples of hasty liberal actions are necessary to make a point. The point simply is that most liberal initiatives put into place are hastily done with little concern for the problems in the future. And the bathroom wasn't my only example.
It was conservative action that gave us the Lawrence decision which made all anti-homosexual laws invalid. Texas changed their statute which had made sodomy illegal and narrowed the scope of the law to make only homosexual sodomy illegal. They clearly targeted a class of citizens with unexpected results.
I'm not sure how the courts followed society in the case of gay marriage, since they have spent their efforts finding state after state illegally withholding gay marriage, when the populace of those states were against redefining marriage. That doesn't sound like the courts following society to me. Even Obama, hardly a conservative, was against gay marriage until his reelection campaign in 2012. Now to even suggest one is against gay marriage is close to a hate crime.
Well I'm hardly a social conservative with respect to homosexuals, abortion, or other such issues, and yes I believe that. Many liberals and even moderates believe that conservatism centers around social issues, which is their mistake.
Acceptance of homosexuality has been growing steadily in the country for decades. This has not been that country where Rock Hudson had to hide his sexuality for many, many years. Here's a fabricated timeline preceding all Court cases related to homosexuality:
1924... first known Gay Rights organization in the US
1951... first national gay rights association in the US
1962... Illinois decriminalizes same-sex sodomy between consenting adults
1973... The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.
1978... Harvey Milk is elected
1982... Wisconsin becomes the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
1996... Romer v. Evans. First SCOTUS case to strike down a law denying homosexuals equal protection under the law
2003... Lawrence v. Texas
There was a lot of history in the general growth of acceptance of homosexuality in the US (@50 years' worth) before the Courts became involved.
Perhaps, but I can look at places like Venezuela, Cuba, China before it discovered capitalism, the Soviet Union, North Korea, all which looked at communism as the solution to poverty and see us moving in that direction. And hopefully no one will confuse communism with conservatism. Are efforts to slow down Hollywood's attempts to push everything from violence to drugs to sex bad? Again, conservatism isn't about stopping change, but slowing it down to envision the problems that change will bring. That's not a bad thing!
Again, you only see negative possibilities. I look to what I believe to be the one of most, if not the most, act of unbridled liberalism in the history of man and its outcome when I consider the possibilities of man being allowed to develop without the binding chains of traditionalism weighing him down.
I am of course talking about The American Revolution.
That turned out OK.
Agreed with respect to the Constitution being the supreme law of the Land. But Prop 8 didn't seek to diminish the rights of anyone, but simply sought to define the term "marriage". Liberals will still decry the enactment of Prop 13 as taking away monies from the poor. With respect to the gay marriage issue, prior to the recent court decisions, the only two defining federal court decisions involving gay marriage (I'm aware of) were a USSC decision refusing to take it on as "not involving a federal issue", and an 8th Circuit decision upholding a state ban on gay marriage.
That decision opened up the discussion of a state's legitimate concern for "discriminating". Discrimination by a government is not illegal per se, but when a case is brought, that governing body must show a compelling state interest. BTW, I'm a proponent the 14th Amendment, which really is the underpinning of the argument here.
Government cannot define marriage, because marriage is the end result of a religious ceremony or sacrament, if you're Catholic. Prop 8 opted to define a civil union in a way that it denied issuance of a marriage license to a group of individuals based on the majority's distaste for these individuals engaging in a completely legal activity, and a marriage license is a civil license issued by the State. The very idea that people are willing to give government the power to define marriage by popular vote is frightening. Those voting to do that are giving absolutely no consideration to the long-term consequences of that transfer of power, and they will scream bloody murder when the government uses that power given to them, to define marriage in a manner completely opposite to what they tried doing with Prop 8.
Yet, it was Prop 8 that gave the government the power to define marriage, just as the Federal DoMA gave the Federal government the power to define marriage.
That was also struck down BTW.
-
We're discussing conservatism as it applies to societal changes. Obamacare does no fit that bill, so let's move away from it.
Not really. See your post 52 responding to my 45. We were discussing conservatism from a political point of view. That it morphed into the gay marriage issue doesn't narrow your view that the purpose of conservatism is to stop progress. My point is still that one of the main objectives of conservatism is to slow down, not necessarily stop legislation that frequently may not consider the unforeseen dilemmas, and to point out that all cultural change isn't necessarily in the best interests of the Nation.
I understand that gay marriage is here to stay, but my point was that the very fast movement of it was the result mainly of federal district courts.
It was conservative action that gave us the Lawrence decision which made all anti-homosexual laws invalid. Texas changed their statute which had made sodomy illegal and narrowed the scope of the law to make only homosexual sodomy illegal. They clearly targeted a class of citizens with unexpected results.
I don't have an issue with the Lawrence decision. Remember religious and cultural norms in the US did not give much leeway to gays and their activities. I can list other good decisions that changed the culture too such as the Loving decision and the Griswold decision. Privacy is a very important right. The 8th Circuit decision did not accept that sexual orientation was a suspect classification, ergo a de facto case of discrimination, and thus was not the same issue as laws that banned interracial marriages.
There was a lot of history in the general growth of acceptance of homosexuality in the US (@50 years' worth) before the Courts became involved.
I can only refer back to the Gallup poll you posted earlier. It wasn't until about 3 years ago that a majority accepted gay marriage. It coincided with several court cases, and the sudden epiphany by Obama and liberal leaders who were by then much farther to the left.
But it is acceptable to a majority today, by almost any poll. And most conservatives have put the issue behind us, knowing there are far more important problems. The Religious Right, is still not happy with it, but I think even they know we are not going back...on many of the social issues.
But it is funny that liberals in general are social activists, while relatively few conservatives are. Yet conservatives get hammered constantly. I'm back to what started this, my concern over the broad brush attack on conservatives.
Again, you only see negative possibilities. I look to what I believe to be the one of most, if not the most, act of unbridled liberalism in the history of man and its outcome when I consider the possibilities of man being allowed to develop without the binding chains of traditionalism weighing him down.
I am of course talking about The American Revolution.
That turned out OK.
It did turn out well, after a second war 30 years later. But it's interesting to me that while we broke the political chain with Britain, we kept most of the religious, cultural, and legal traditions. It's also interesting that the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke believed most vehemently in tradition as the binding to social order. He wrote extensively about how out-of-control liberalism led to the French Revolution which he despised. Yet at the same time he approved of the American Revolution.
Government cannot define marriage, because marriage is the end result of a religious ceremony or sacrament, if you're Catholic. Prop 8 opted to define a civil union in a way that it denied issuance of a marriage license to a group of individuals based on the majority's distaste for these individuals engaging in a completely legal activity, and a marriage license is a civil license issued by the State. The very idea that people are willing to give government the power to define marriage by popular vote is frightening. Those voting to do that are giving absolutely no consideration to the long-term consequences of that transfer of power, and they will scream bloody murder when the government uses that power given to them, to define marriage in a manner completely opposite to what they tried doing with Prop 8.
Yet, it was Prop 8 that gave the government the power to define marriage, just as the Federal DoMA gave the Federal government the power to define marriage.
That was also struck down BTW.
Governments everywhere have always had a part in defining marriage. Utah became a state only after agreement to give up polygamy. Every state has laws defining both the meaning and requirements for marriage. It should not be surprising then that the proponents of Prop 8 were disappointed that their state chose to change that definition, in spite of an earlier constitutional amendment by the people defining marriage. As I said earlier, every state has a constitutional amendment process that includes the people. In any case, it was the federal court that struck it down.
-
Back to: "Dems hope for Cruz, fear Bush"
Or in effect, dems hope the GOP will nominate a candidate that pleases their religious wing, but is out of step with the nation and will therefore lose.
So far Rand Paul and Jeb Bush seem to be seeking to gain wider appeal.
The nation as a whole wants pot legalized, and wants people to be able to form pairings and associations as they please, which are expansions of personal freedom, and stepping away from religious incursion into civil law.
I remember after the 2012 loss, when Republicans were admitting they needed to do some serious soul searching, since they appeared to be going away from the demographics and social opinions.
For now that soul searching is set aside, while most seek to appeal to whatever the feel is the "base."
Just remember that now is primary season, when most "run to the right" but then for the general the Republican will "run to the center."
-
Not really. See your post 52 responding to my 45. We were discussing conservatism from a political point of view. That it morphed into the gay marriage issue doesn't narrow your view that the purpose of conservatism is to stop progress. My point is still that one of the main objectives of conservatism is to slow down, not necessarily stop legislation that frequently may not consider the unforeseen dilemmas, and to point out that all cultural change isn't necessarily in the best interests of the Nation.
If you wish to continue injecting Obamacare into a discussion about societal changes and government, go right ahead. I'm not responding any further to what I see as being a red herring being thrown into the discussion.
I understand that gay marriage is here to stay, but my point was that the very fast movement of it was the result mainly of federal district courts.
I posted a timeline that disproves that. Apparently you need someone to lay blame on, and the Courts are your boogeyman. Go right head, that's your prerogative, but I'm also out of that one.
I don't have an issue with the Lawrence decision. Remember religious and cultural norms in the US did not give much leeway to gays and their activities. I can list other good decisions that changed the culture too such as the Loving decision and the Griswold decision. Privacy is a very important right. The 8th Circuit decision did not accept that sexual orientation was a suspect classification, ergo a de facto case of discrimination, and thus was not the same issue as laws that banned interracial marriages.
I can only refer back to the Gallup poll you posted earlier. It wasn't until about 3 years ago that a majority accepted gay marriage. It coincided with several court cases, and the sudden epiphany by Obama and liberal leaders who were by then much farther to the left.
But it is acceptable to a majority today, by almost any poll. And most conservatives have put the issue behind us, knowing there are far more important problems. The Religious Right, is still not happy with it, but I think even they know we are not going back...on many of the social issues.
The rise in acceptance long preceded the majority approval. You apparently need to assign blame on the Courts for the acceptance rising above the 50% mark, and I see a pattern that tells me that we would have arrived there irrespective of the Court's decisions. In reference to Loving, over 70% of Americans at the time opposed legalizing interracial marriage , but apparently and in retrospect, that wasn't activism, that was a good call by the Court. Knowing that, I expect the same historical view of the upcoming Court decision on SSM.
But it is funny that liberals in general are social activists, while relatively few conservatives are. Yet conservatives get hammered constantly. I'm back to what started this, my concern over the broad brush attack on conservatives.
I wholeheartedly disagree. The rise of Falwell's Moral Majority pegged conservatives as social activists and that tag has yet to be removed.
It did turn out well, after a second war 30 years later. But it's interesting to me that while we broke the political chain with Britain, we kept most of the religious, cultural, and legal traditions. It's also interesting that the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke believed most vehemently in tradition as the binding to social order. He wrote extensively about how out-of-control liberalism led to the French Revolution which he despised. Yet at the same time he approved of the American Revolution.
Governments everywhere have always had a part in defining marriage. Utah became a state only after agreement to give up polygamy. Every state has laws defining both the meaning and requirements for marriage. It should not be surprising then that the proponents of Prop 8 were disappointed that their state chose to change that definition, in spite of an earlier constitutional amendment by the people defining marriage. As I said earlier, every state has a constitutional amendment process that includes the people. In any case, it was the federal court that struck it down.
Governments became entwined in marriage after Luther's Reformulation.
“Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church.”
Since that point in time, marriage became dissoluble. No-fault divorce and remarriage became the law of the land. Then with marriage no longer being a permanent union, children became disposable objects, which opened up the door to the redefinition of the procreative act in marriage. Contraception and abortion became legal. The sexual revolution was in full swing. Then once children and conjugal acts between man and woman were no longer thought as being connected to marriage, marriage made teh next logical jump and it is now being redefined as something other than one man and one woman.
A wise man that I once knew used to remind us all of a very simple, irrefutable truth:
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
Why do we keep forgetting that?
-
Back to: "Dems hope for Cruz, fear Bush"
Or in effect, dems hope the GOP will nominate a candidate that pleases their religious wing, but is out of step with the nation and will therefore lose.
So far Rand Paul and Jeb Bush seem to be seeking to gain wider appeal.
The nation as a whole wants pot legalized, and wants people to be able to form pairings and associations as they please, which are expansions of personal freedom, and stepping away from religious incursion into civil law.
I remember after the 2012 loss, when Republicans were admitting they needed to do some serious soul searching, since they appeared to be going away from the demographics and social opinions.
For now that soul searching is set aside, while most seek to appeal to whatever the feel is the "base."
Just remember that now is primary season, when most "run to the right" but then for the general the Republican will "run to the center."
Love to get back to Dems hope for Cruz, etc, but you again enlarge the topic by going after the social conservative side. If only pot and gay marriage were the important issues. Yes, a majority of Americans approve of pot and gay marriage, but do they also approve of all the cultural baggage that goes along with these new "rights"? Changes in the military, pushing new gender identification in schools, significant increases in drugs, violence and sex in movies, music, games are all part of the new cultural changes taking place.
At the same time, the left is also going after religion with a vengeance. And many even on the center-right are not chastising the left, but rather the right for anything they say that might indicate a disapproval of all this rapid change.
The candidates on the Republican side are more than often being challenged by the press not on the issues of the day, but on gotcha questions like, "so what do you think about gay marriage", or "do you approve of abortion", etc. Then when they answer, some even here say, "See, it's all about social issues".
Yes, Republican candidates try to appeal to the more active voters during the primary season, and then head toward the center in the general. But so do the Democrats. This election the pressure isn't on Hillary though, it's on the Republicans, given that she isn't likely to lose the nomination. But I do continue to maintain that the Democrats are far more afraid of Bush than of Cruz...at least at this point.
-
If you wish to continue injecting Obamacare into a discussion about societal changes and government, go right ahead. I'm not responding any further to what I see as being a red herring being thrown into the discussion.
You and another poster went after all conservatives and conservatism in general. To then restrict the discussion to only your favorite topic would seem to be the winning red herring. Can't play under those rules. It was a good discussion up to that point. Later.
-
You and another poster went after all conservatives and conservatism in general. To then restrict the discussion to only your favorite topic would seem to be the winning red herring. Can't play under those rules. It was a good discussion up to that point. Later.
I didn't "go after" anyone. That's the conservative victim mentality in display.
It's really a far reach to argue that I am going after all conservatives and conservatives in general if you actually read my post #52, and considering the fact that I label myself some manner of a conservative with strong civil libertarian streaks running through my ideology, my going after conservatism doesn't make sense.
I gave my opinion on what I consider to be separate branches of conservatism: Social and Constitutional, and what I see as being troubling with the social branch of conservatism.
I've been very consistently critical of social conservatism as it exists today.
-
You and another poster went after all conservatives and conservatism in general. To then restrict the discussion to only your favorite topic would seem to be the winning red herring. Can't play under those rules. It was a good discussion up to that point. Later.
P.S. Obamacare is an affront to Constitutional Conservatism because of the way it was passed, the fact that it mandates the population to purchase a product under penalty of law and a few other things I don;t have the time to list right now.
What it absolutely has noting to do with is organic societal changes, which was the subject of my posts.
-
I didn't "go after" anyone. That's the conservative victim mentality in display.
:shrug: You just did, referring to it as the "conservative victim mentality".
This was your post to me:
Conservatism is, by the very definition of the word, the idea of "preserving" things. So generally speaking Conservatism opposes change. Now (all these of course are strictly my opinions) Constitutional Conservatism is the idea of preserving the Constitution as the primary focus of governance and a tool to control the government. Social conservatism tries to use the government as a tool to try ans stave off societal changes, and that's when things get ugly.
We spent most of posts talking about social conservatism, especially gay marriage, in spite of my retort that conservatism is much more than simply opposing change, and is far more than the issues of gay marriage and pot. But many continue to try to define conservatives by the gay marriage issue. Most have accepted that it's here to stay. Most want to move on to more important issues.
I've been very consistently critical of social conservatism as it exists today.
I know you have, and I've been consistently critical of many aspects of social liberalism, including some examples I've listed, which you didn't consider important. We differ on them.
You mentioned earlier that I was in agreement with some USSC decisions such as Loving, and I explained why. I don't have to agree with every issue in the Religious Right's agenda to defend conservatism in general.
-
I'm with you MAC in your perspective on social change. I'll just add a little.
Rapid social change is a relatively new phenomenon. Previous generations experienced social change glacially slow compared to computer age generations. Surely there will be physical effects and certainly some psychological impact on the modern psyche, especially as we see the pace of change quickening.
In the same vein, previous generations established immigration policies that allowed a period of assimilation between waves of new immigrants. Time for new groups to fit in. However, todays immigrants, especially illegals, are self selecting in uncontrolled numbers. We are quickly losing hope of ever seeing similar patterns of assimilation into American culture with these new groups that we had seen with previous waves of immigrants.
Conservatives want to keep the traditions and policies that have been shown to work, in essence since civilization began.
-
:shrug: You just did, referring to it as the "conservative victim mentality".
This was your post to me:
We spent most of posts talking about social conservatism, especially gay marriage, in spite of my retort that conservatism is much more than simply opposing change, and is far more than the issues of gay marriage and pot. But many continue to try to define conservatives by the gay marriage issue. Most have accepted that it's here to stay. Most want to move on to more important issues.
I know you have, and I've been consistently critical of many aspects of social liberalism, including some examples I've listed, which you didn't consider important. We differ on them.
You mentioned earlier that I was in agreement with some USSC decisions such as Loving, and I explained why. I don't have to agree with every issue in the Religious Right's agenda to defend conservatism in general.
That was PART of my post to you. I take the time to develop my response and explain things in greater detail, so ignoring the totality of my post and drilling down on a portion of it seems very liberal to me.
The reason that most people try and define SOCIAL conservatism/conservatives by their stance on homosexuality and SSM is because those are the leading SOCIAL issues of our time, and SOCIAL conservatives are defining themselves by their "fight" to "defend" the traditional family and the traditional definition of marriage against an increasing level of acceptance from the general population for alternative lifestyles.
My individual definition of my individual core conservative beliefs is simple and very Jeffersonian:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson from Motes on The State of Virginia
Having two gay men (or women) marry diminishes the merit and worth of my marriage in no way. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Obamacare on the other hand picks my pocket and makes it both more difficult and less medically safe and efficient to mend my broken leg.
-
It was a good discussion up to that point. Later.
It is a fascinating discussion, and I thought both you and Luis made really great points. Thank you both for the thoughtful analysis.
-
Goldwater was thrown to the wolves in a year when there was no possibility of ANY republican winning right after Kennedy was assassinated and the left wing of the GOP has been using it to their advantage ever since!
"See! That's what happens when you nominate a CONSERVATIVE!" It's TOTAL BS!
I don't know who you think threw Goldwater to the wolves. It certainly wasn't liberal Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller or internationalist ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge. 1964 had a very crowded field of moderate Republicans and one far-right "extremism in the age of nuclear Armageddon is no vice" Republican.
They all ran for the nomination after Kennedy died
Hawaii Senator Hiram Fong the first Asian American to receive votes for president at a major party convention.
"Kennedy Republican" Governor William Scranton of Pennsylvania
Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine the first woman to be placed in nomination for the presidency at a major party's convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1964#Nominee
Goldwater wasn't thrown to the wolves. He fought tooth and nail to lose the general election. A stunning defeat that destroyed the GOP in the US House and Senate and gave Johnson the power to pass the "Great Society."
-
Goldwater wasn't thrown to the wolves. He fought tooth and nail to lose the general election. A stunning defeat that destroyed the GOP in the US House and Senate and gave Johnson the power to pass the "Great Society."
Two words! You figure out what they are!
I never fails to amaze me how easily some people fall for revisionist history BS!
-
Back to the original topic at hand, I would be very wary of what the Democrats say on this topic.
Remember what happened in Missouri when they said many of the same things about Todd Akin that they said about Jeb. That lasted about as long as the primary, and then a week later, boom.
The Democrats know Jeb is a weak candidate who can easily be defeated the moment a primary is finished and they can't change the nomination.
-
I'm with you MAC in your perspective on social change. I'll just add a little.
Rapid social change is a relatively new phenomenon. Previous generations experienced social change glacially slow compared to computer age generations. Surely there will be physical effects and certainly some psychological impact on the modern psyche, especially as we see the pace of change quickening.
In the same vein, previous generations established immigration policies that allowed a period of assimilation between waves of new immigrants. Time for new groups to fit in. However, todays immigrants, especially illegals, are self selecting in uncontrolled numbers. We are quickly losing hope of ever seeing similar patterns of assimilation into American culture with these new groups that we had seen with previous waves of immigrants.
Conservatives want to keep the traditions and policies that have been shown to work, in essence since civilization began.
Yes, I agree, our culture and society are changing so rapidly, it's hard to recognize from one year to the next. And I do think the internet has had a lot to do with it. People tend more and more to see conservatism in only a bad light, and as I mentioned earlier, I wonder what things would be like without it. **nononono*
-
Two words! You figure out what they are!
I never fails to amaze me how easily some people fall for revisionist history BS!
Don't be like that Bigun. I've got no animosity towards you. I've got an opinion, and a strong opinion. I think the '64 Goldwater campaign tanked the GOP. You've corrected me before, and I have thanked you for it.
Please.
Show me how the Powers-That-Be tanked the conservative campaign of Goldwater. Give me something except amazement at my gullibility and a veiled invective. I am ready to be enlightened.
-
That was PART of my post to you. I take the time to develop my response and explain things in greater detail, so ignoring the totality of my post and drilling down on a portion of it seems very liberal to me.
Sort of like my mentioning of Obamacare.
The reason that most people try and define SOCIAL conservatism/conservatives by their stance on homosexuality and SSM is because those are the leading SOCIAL issues of our time, and SOCIAL conservatives are defining themselves by their "fight" to "defend" the traditional family and the traditional definition of marriage against an increasing level of acceptance from the general population for alternative lifestyles.
I think it expands even beyond simply same-sex marriage, to all of the LGBT issues of today, and of the wider acceptance of sexual predilection in everyday social activity. The heroes of today are the Bruce Jenners and Bradley Mannings, not because of their history, but because of their "new" genders. Is it right to wince at such things? I do, and I know a lot of others do also.
My individual definition of my individual core conservative beliefs is simple and very Jeffersonian:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson from Motes on The State of Virginia
And most conservatives believe that.
Having two gay men (or women) marry diminishes the merit and worth of my marriage in no way. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Obamacare on the other hand picks my pocket and makes it both more difficult and less medically safe and efficient to mend my broken leg.
You see I don't have any problem with your belief on same-sex marriage, nor do I have an issue with those who do. Perhaps it's the libertarian part of my conservative nature. And until three or four years ago, most Americans felt that a state that wanted SSM could have it; those that did not should not have it. It would seem that freedom of choice apparently must be decided only by liberals, not conservatives.
-
It is a fascinating discussion, and I thought both you and Luis made really great points. Thank you both for the thoughtful analysis.
:beer:
-
Back to the original topic at hand, I would be very wary of what the Democrats say on this topic.
Remember what happened in Missouri when they said many of the same things about Todd Akin that they said about Jeb. That lasted about as long as the primary, and then a week later, boom.
The Democrats know Jeb is a weak candidate who can easily be defeated the moment a primary is finished and they can't change the nomination.
I'm still curious how you arrived at that conclusion. You know that Bush can cut into the women's and Hispanic vote, and you know that Cruz cannot. So how does that scare the Democrats?
-
Sort of like my mentioning of Obamacare.
Sigh... There you go again.
Had Obamacare been enacted by the government riding on the back of a wave of increasing demand for socialized medicine, that would fit this discussion, Obamacare was the polar opposite of that, and the polar opposite of the acceptance, in both the Courts and the people, of homosexuality and SSM.
I think it expands even beyond simply same-sex marriage, to all of the LGBT issues of today, and of the wider acceptance of sexual predilection in everyday social activity. The heroes of today are the Bruce Jenners and Bradley Mannings, not because of their history, but because of their "new" genders. Is it right to wince at such things? I do, and I know a lot of others do also.
And most conservatives believe that.
They're wrong, and I can prove that to you.
Is Bruce Jenner your hero?
In fact, is Bruce Jenner anyone's hero in this forum?
So then, how can he be that "hero of today", when he's no hero to all, or maybe a hero to a limited number of people?
I am a huge fan of cool jazz, have been one for a long time. Miles, Paul Desmond, Chet Baker... Loved their music. Then, as I listened to more and more of their music I transitioned to Avant Garde Jazz, because the players were cool, Avant Garde was smoky, mysterious and cool, and I wanted to be smoky, mysterious and cool.
Then I got to Coltrane at that point when he took the movement atonal and unstructured, with modal scales and rhythms that existed mostly in the drummers' head, so I went there... for a little while. Right up until I realized that it was stupid and just noise, so I ( along with the rest of the world) took a step or two back to cool jazz music with tonality and a beat.
That's where we are right now with the whole LGBT crap. A lot of people are pushing the boundaries, but soon the boundaries will push back. We will never go back to Stan Kenton and Woody Zherman, but to some place that makes sense.
You see I don't have any problem with your belief on same-sex marriage, nor do I have an issue with those who do. Perhaps it's the libertarian part of my conservative nature. And until three or four years ago, most Americans felt that a state that wanted SSM could have it; those that did not should not have it. It would seem that freedom of choice apparently must be decided only by liberals, not conservatives.
Blame the XIV Amendment, and while you're at it, bless the XIV Amendment.
Prior to the clause in the Amendment that mandated that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", and the doctrine of incorporation, the SCOTUS was finding (correctly I might add) that the limitations imposed by the First and Second Amendments applied only to the Federal government and not to the States (United States v. Cruikshank). Thanks to the XIV Amendment, that's no longer the case and as a result, people in DC can now buy guns and Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for abortifacients for their employees.
It's a wonder to me that you would use "choice" as the base meaning of something that removes the freedom and the choice to do something from a segment of the population by another segment of the population via a vote.
A wonder.
-
It is a fascinating discussion, and I thought both you and Luis made really great points. Thank you both for the thoughtful analysis.
:patriot:
-
They're wrong, and I can prove that to you.
Is Bruce Jenner your hero?
In fact, is Bruce Jenner anyone's hero in this forum?
So then, how can he be that "hero of today", when he's no hero to all, or maybe a hero to a limited number of people?
You're missing the point. I said that gay marriage wasn't the only issue for the social conservatives. I said that conservatives in general have many more concerns springing out of that change to marriage laws. And yes, the Bruce Jenners and Bradley Mannings are now in the forefront as the new heroes of today. Children are being taught at a very early age today that they might want to consider another gender choice. The US military is actually making plans for an integration of LGBT into the ranks.
A recent poll shows that people believe the gay and lesbian population is about 25%, while in fact only about 3.8% self identify as such. I'm not surprised. It seems to be the issue of the century for many. Movies, television shows, constantly attempt to make heroes out of this group, small though it really is.
And as I've pointed out earlier, the increasing sex, violence and drugs in the media, movies, tv and games sold to children should be a major concern. Can we stop this cultural paradigm shift? Probably not. Conservatives would like to curb it; liberals want to see it increase, because to a liberal, the only way to get to their version of heaven on earth where everyone is equal, the old culture with its traditions must be destroyed.
I am a huge fan of cool jazz, have been one for a long time. Miles, Paul Desmond, Chet Baker... Loved their music. Then, as I listened to more and more of their music I transitioned to Avant Garde Jazz, because the players were cool, Avant Garde was smoky, mysterious and cool, and I wanted to be smoky, mysterious and cool.
Then I got to Coltrane at that point when he took the movement atonal and unstructured, with modal scales and rhythms that existed mostly in the drummers' head, so I went there... for a little while. Right up until I realized that it was stupid and just noise, so I ( along with the rest of the world) took a step or two back to cool jazz music with tonality and a beat.
That's where we are right now with the whole LGBT crap. A lot of people are pushing the boundaries, but soon the boundaries will push back. We will never go back to Stan Kenton and Woody Zherman, but to some place that makes sense.
Blame the XIV Amendment, and while you're at it, bless the XIV Amendment.
Prior to the clause in the Amendment that mandated that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", and the doctrine of incorporation, the SCOTUS was finding (correctly I might add) that the limitations imposed by the First and Second Amendments applied only to the Federal government and not to the States (United States v. Cruikshank). Thanks to the XIV Amendment, that's no longer the case and as a result, people in DC can now buy guns and Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for abortifacients for their employees.
It's a wonder to me that you would use "choice" as the base meaning of something that removes the freedom and the choice to do something from a segment of the population by another segment of the population via a vote.
A wonder.
Choice is the underpinning of a republican form of government. Some states execute people; some don't. You mentioned gun laws. Yes you may be able to buy a gun in DC, but the gun laws vary widely from state to state, something called choice. Some states have much greater child protection laws than do others. Most conservatives had little problem with Massachusetts going forward with gay marriage as long it didn't force their state into changing the basic definition of a centuries old system.
Now if you read that 8th Circuit decision I mentioned a couple of times, you would understand how the court distinguished interracial marriage from intra-gender marriage. And you would have seen read the slippery slope argument, which only makes sense. Will it be legal for a brother and sister to marry? How about a father and daughter? Will the age barrier be subject to the 14th Amendment? If the parents agree, can two twelve year old boys marry each other? If two are good, why not three or four marrying? After all if they all love each other, who are we to judge? And shouldn't the whole group get the tax bennies? Polygamy can now be expanded to multiple spouses of the same sex or opposite sex, so that bi-sexuals can get the benefits of the 14th Amendment.
Who says liberals don't like tradition. They can now legally return to the communes of the 1960s, and get the tax benefits to boot. And of course, divorces will be much more complicated in such groups, a whole new career for lawyers!
And God forbid the conservative who says, "I'm not too sure I like all of that".
-
Don't be like that Bigun. I've got no animosity towards you. I've got an opinion, and a strong opinion. I think the '64 Goldwater campaign tanked the GOP. You've corrected me before, and I have thanked you for it.
Please.
Show me how the Powers-That-Be tanked the conservative campaign of Goldwater. Give me something except amazement at my gullibility and a veiled invective. I am ready to be enlightened.
OK! I apologize but it REALLY ticks me off for people to attempt to put words in my mouth that I NEVER said!
What I actually said was that there was no one who was going to beat Johnson so soon after Kennedy's death and the establishment has taken FULL advantage of that fact by attempting to attribute Goldwater's loss to his conservatism rather than the circumstances.
-
And as I've pointed out earlier, the increasing sex, violence and drugs in the media, movies, tv and games sold to children should be a major concern. Can we stop this cultural paradigm shift? Probably not. Conservatives would like to curb it; liberals want to see it increase, because to a liberal, the only way to get to their version of heaven on earth where everyone is equal, the old culture with its traditions must be destroyed.
And the fact that when you and I were growing up EVERYONE knew who Audie Murpy was and looked up to him!
Today everyone knows who Kim Kardasian is and no one has a clue as to who Ed Freeman is or what he did!
-
And the fact that when you and I were growing up EVERYONE knew who Audie Murpy was and looked up to him!
Today everyone knows who Kim Kardasian is and no one has a clue as to who Ed Freeman is or what he did!
Very true.
-
Very true.
At the risk of taking this thread off subject I would like to return to another subject with you for a moment.
Article II, Section 1 wording in the Constitution remains the same today as originally adopted/ratified.
Do you believe that to be a true statement or not?
-
At the risk of taking this thread off subject I would like to return to another subject with you for a moment.
Article II, Section 1 wording in the Constitution remains the same today as originally adopted/ratified.
Do you believe that to be a true statement or not?
No, there have been changes. Where are you heading with this though?
-
I'm heading to the subject of who is qualified under the Constitution to be President of the United States.
What are those changes you think have modified that wording?
For example when I look at any modern copy of the Constitution there will be a notation of some kind inserted after the phrase or clause which has latter been modified by Constitutional amendment. There aren't any such notations in Article II, Section 1 with regard to the qualifications for office of president or vice president.
No that particular clause in Article II Section 1 hasn't changed.
-
No that particular clause in Article II Section 1 hasn't changed.
That's right! So the qualifications for the office of president have not been altered by any amendment to date and remain the same today as they were originally.
That being the case, you should know that The Library of Congress contains Farrand's records (Robert Farrand was a Constitutional Convention scribe) of the debate around Article II. Original proposed wording was that the office of President required a "citizen of one of the several states." Also in the Library of Congress is a letter written by John Jay (who eventually became first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court) to George Washington (who was a delegate to the Convention) proposing the requirement be "natural-born citizen." The founders/framers understood the distinction.
The US Supreme Court cited The Law of Nations at least four times from its inception through 1875 when it issued the ruling in Minor v. Happersett, in which the court cited the definition of natural-born citizen from The Law of Nations pretty much verbatim. It requires birth in the country to parents who were citizens (plural) at the time of birth.
The debates around the 14th Amendment (Congressional Record) are full of statements that confirm the definition from The Law of Nations.
Current day legislators obviously also understand the distinction between "citizen" and "natural-born citizen" as they attempted eight times in a twenty-two month period through February, 2008 to either change the requirement to "citizen" or remove it.
That is where I'm coming from when I say that Cruz is not eligible and neither are Rubio and Jindal.
(Sorry! I inadvertently removed the post that you replied to above and to which this post replies in trying to make myself more clear. but no harm done as you had already quoted it.)
-
That's right! So the qualifications for the office of president have not been altered by any amendment to date and remain the same today as they were originally.
That being the case, you should know that The Library of Congress contains Farrand's records (Robert Farrand was a Constitutional Convention scribe) of the debate around Article II. Original proposed wording was that the office of President required a "citizen of one of the several states." Also in the Library of Congress is a letter written by John Jay (who eventually became first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court) to George Washington (who was a delegate to the Convention) proposing the requirement be "natural-born citizen." The founders/framers understood the distinction.
The US Supreme Court cited The Law of Nations at least four times from its inception through 1875 when it issued the ruling in Minor v. Happersett, in which the court cited the definition of natural-born citizen from The Law of Nations pretty much verbatim. It requires birth in the country to parents who were citizens (plural) at the time of birth.
The debates around the 14th Amendment (Congressional Record) are full of statements that confirm the definition from The Law of Nations.
Current day legislators obviously also understand the distinction between "citizen" and "natural-born citizen" as they attempted eight times in a twenty-two month period through February, 2008 to either change the requirement to "citizen" or remove it.
That is where I'm coming from when I say that Cruz is not eligible and neither are Rubio and Jindal.
(Sorry! I inadvertently removed the post that you replied to above and to which this post replies in trying to make myself more clear. but no harm done as you had already quoted it.)
Nothing has changed Bigun. We spent many threads discussing this. I disagree with you completely for all of the reasons given earlier. Having said that, you can believe none of them is eligible, but most of America doesn't agree with you, and just as with the Obama eligibility lawsuits, no court is going to give you the time of day. IOW it is simply an academic exercise. You've told me that you believe Cruz to be ineligible for the office, but at the same time you said you would vote for him because he is a constitutional conservative.
So why debate this issue?
-
Nothing has changed Bigun. We spent many threads discussing this. I disagree with you completely for all of the reasons given earlier. Having said that, you can believe none of them is eligible, but most of America doesn't agree with you, and just as with the Obama eligibility lawsuits, no court is going to give you the time of day. IOW it is simply an academic exercise. You've told me that you believe Cruz to be ineligible for the office, but at the same time you said you would vote for him because he is a constitutional conservative.
So why debate this issue?
I agree with your point that it is, at this point in time, simply an academic exercise even if it shouldn't be. That is exactly why it would not prevent me from voting for Cruz. I only brought it up because you referenced it recently.
-
You're missing the point. I said that gay marriage wasn't the only issue for the social conservatives. I said that conservatives in general have many more concerns springing out of that change to marriage laws. And yes, the Bruce Jenners and Bradley Mannings are now in the forefront as the new heroes of today. Children are being taught at a very early age today that they might want to consider another gender choice. The US military is actually making plans for an integration of LGBT into the ranks.
A recent poll shows that people believe the gay and lesbian population is about 25%, while in fact only about 3.8% self identify as such. I'm not surprised. It seems to be the issue of the century for many. Movies, television shows, constantly attempt to make heroes out of this group, small though it really is.
And as I've pointed out earlier, the increasing sex, violence and drugs in the media, movies, tv and games sold to children should be a major concern. Can we stop this cultural paradigm shift? Probably not. Conservatives would like to curb it; liberals want to see it increase, because to a liberal, the only way to get to their version of heaven on earth where everyone is equal, the old culture with its traditions must be destroyed.
Choice is the underpinning of a republican form of government. Some states execute people; some don't. You mentioned gun laws. Yes you may be able to buy a gun in DC, but the gun laws vary widely from state to state, something called choice. Some states have much greater child protection laws than do others. Most conservatives had little problem with Massachusetts going forward with gay marriage as long it didn't force their state into changing the basic definition of a centuries old system.
Now if you read that 8th Circuit decision I mentioned a couple of times, you would understand how the court distinguished interracial marriage from intra-gender marriage. And you would have seen read the slippery slope argument, which only makes sense. Will it be legal for a brother and sister to marry? How about a father and daughter? Will the age barrier be subject to the 14th Amendment? If the parents agree, can two twelve year old boys marry each other? If two are good, why not three or four marrying? After all if they all love each other, who are we to judge? And shouldn't the whole group get the tax bennies? Polygamy can now be expanded to multiple spouses of the same sex or opposite sex, so that bi-sexuals can get the benefits of the 14th Amendment.
Who says liberals don't like tradition. They can now legally return to the communes of the 1960s, and get the tax benefits to boot. And of course, divorces will be much more complicated in such groups, a whole new career for lawyers!
And God forbid the conservative who says, "I'm not too sure I like all of that".
I only have time to respond to the highlighted sentence. You and Bigun have "heroes" confused with "notorious" and "celebrity". The notion that Jenner today is a hero because of his sex change is pure and unadulterated hyperbole.
Jenner and the Kardashians are notorious and celebrities.
Chris Kyle is a hero. And the success of America Sniper proves that Americans still know what a hero is beyond the shade of a doubt.
-
I agree with your point that it is, at this point in time, simply an academic exercise even if it shouldn't be. That is exactly why it would not prevent me from voting for Cruz. I only brought it up because you referenced it recently.
I referenced the qualifications for president here recently? Might have, but don't recall. But again, if you believe Cruz to be constitutionally ineligible, and you do claim to be a constitutional conservative, I'm not sure how you could vote for him. Then you would be like most of the rest of us saying, it really doesn't matter.
How could someone argue for years to have Obama disqualified and yet give Ted Cruz a pass?
-
I referenced the qualifications for president here recently? Might have, but don't recall. But again, if you believe Cruz to be constitutionally ineligible, and you do claim to be a constitutional conservative, I'm not sure how you could vote for him. Then you would be like most of the rest of us saying, it really doesn't matter.
How could someone argue for years to have Obama disqualified and yet give Ted Cruz a pass?
Believe me it isn't easy! I HATE seeing our Constitution eroded away!
-
I only have time to respond to the highlighted sentence. You and Bigun have "heroes" confused with "notorious" and "celebrity". The notion that Jenner today is a hero because of his sex change is pure and unadulterated hyperbole.
Jenner and the Kardashians are notorious and celebrities.
Chris Kyle is a hero. And the success of America Sniper proves that Americans still know what a hero is beyond the shade of a doubt.
They are not my heroes, but they are the heroes of the left, which is dramatically changing our culture and societal norms. My point is and has been that the very sudden shift in gay marriage approval by society is part of a much larger cultural paradigm change. That is what conservatives are pushing back on.
-
Believe me it isn't easy! I HATE seeing our Constitution eroded away!
Let me ask you this. Do you believe Cruz's birthplace will in any way impact how he would serve as president?
-
Let me ask you this. Do you believe Cruz's birthplace will in any way impact how he would serve as president?
No! I do not! But that does not change anything with regard to the Constitution and WHY the founders chose to make it as they did.
I should add that I only answered as I did because I personally know and respect Ted Cruz. Otherwise I would have had to answer 'I don't know!"
-
They are not my heroes, but they are the heroes of the left, which is dramatically changing our culture and societal norms. My point is and has been that the very sudden shift in gay marriage approval by society is part of a much larger cultural paradigm change. That is what conservatives are pushing back on.
Your statement was, on more than one occasion, that they were "the heroes of today", not "the heroes of the left". That's a vast sea of difference between what you said before and what you're sting now and what makes your previous statements hyperbole.
-
They are not my heroes, but they are the heroes of the left, which is dramatically changing our culture and societal norms. My point is and has been that the very sudden shift in gay marriage approval by society is part of a much larger cultural paradigm change. That is what conservatives are pushing back on.
So, then, organic societal changes, according to SOCIAL conservatives, is something to be fought against. That's what I'm understanding your statement to be.
If government is truly by the people, for the people, and of the people, then where do SOCIAL conservatives derive the power to engage the government to try and stop organic societal changes from?
-
BTW, I don't see acceptance of SSM after millennia of non-acceptance as constituting a "sudden shift".
It's more a factor of the people who opposed it dying off and being replaced by people who are more likely to accept change than not. And after all, all organic societal change is liberal in nature.
-
Your statement was, on more than one occasion, that they were "the heroes of today", not "the heroes of the left". That's a vast sea of difference between what you said before and what you're sting now and what makes your previous statements hyperbole.
You can try splitting hairs, but I've made my point. We frequently tend to use the term "hyperbole" to counter something we disagree with.
-
So, then, organic societal changes, according to SOCIAL conservatives, is something to be fought against. That's what I'm understanding your statement to be.
If government is truly by the people, for the people, and of the people, then where do SOCIAL conservatives derive the power to engage the government to try and stop organic societal changes from?
As long as conservatives don't break the laws to push back against this massive cultural shift, I've no problem with it, and in fact encourage it. As I've pointed out several times, without conservatism, the liberal changes in every aspect of our government, our economy and society would me moving at warp speed.
You speak of the people, yet you decried the passing of Prop 8, a second attempt to prevent the government from enacting a change most Californians didn't want. Aren't you trying to have it both ways?
-
You can try splitting hairs, but I've made my point. We frequently tend to use the term "hyperbole" to counter something we disagree with.
Suggesting that Bruce Jenner is a hero of today, which would make him a hero to all is hyperbole.
-
BTW, I don't see acceptance of SSM after millennia of non-acceptance as constituting a "sudden shift".
It's more a factor of the people who opposed it dying off and being replaced by people who are more likely to accept change than not. And after all, all organic societal change is liberal in nature.
I would call any such dramatic shift in opinion only 3 or 4 years ago after millennia a sudden shift. But who's counting? Again, most conservatives have accepted it regardless of how they personally feel. It's the rest of it that is turning into the elephant in the room. It's happening in our schools, our theaters, the kids' rooms, the playground, and everywhere that the left has influence. And since no one seems to really be talking about it, it simply continues and is thus the elephant in the room. It's far more than gay marriage.
-
Suggesting that Bruce Jenner is a hero of today, which would make him a hero to all is hyperbole.
No one is a hero to all. That is hyperbole.
-
No one is a hero to all. That is hyperbole.
So then, what is " the hero of today" if not a hero to all today?
-
So then, what is " the hero of today" if not a hero to all today?
Was that a serious question? Matthew Shepard was considered a hero of his day, while at the same time young Jesse Dirkhising also murdered in that period was totally ignored. Unfortunately the first anniversary of Shepard's death was taking place, and there was no room in the press for a preteen boy tortured and murdered by two black gays.
But I won't argue your point that there can be no heroes of the day unless they are a hero to every living person. Choose another word, but the meaning remains.
-
Was that a serious question? Matthew Shepard was considered a hero of his day, while at the same time young Jesse Dirkhising also murdered in that period was totally ignored. Unfortunately the first anniversary of Shepard's death was taking place, and there was no room in the press for a preteen boy tortured and murdered by two black gays.
But I won't argue your point that there can be no heroes of the day unless they are a hero to every living person. Choose another word, but the meaning remains.
To who exactly?
I, along with millions, thought that Shepard's murder was wrong. Didn't you?
Don't you think that someone getting tortured, beaten and left to die because of their sexual orientation is wrong?
Doesn't Shepard deserve pity for the manner in which his life ended?
Answering "yes" to either question does not make Shepard a hero. It makes him a victim.
Yes, Dirkhising's murder received less press, then again, there were many other murders that took place between the two which received little or no press at all.
Getting press coverage makes one notorious, not a hero.
Shepard became a symbol to some, not a "hero of his day."
-
To who exactly?
I, along with millions, thought that Shepard's murder was wrong. Didn't you?
Don't you think that someone getting tortured, beaten and left to die because of their sexual orientation is wrong?
Doesn't Shepard deserve pity for the manner in which his life ended?
Answering "yes" to either question does not make Shepard a hero. It makes him a victim.
Yes, Dirkhising's murder received less press, then again, there were many other murders that took place between the two which received little or no press at all.
Getting press coverage makes one notorious, not a hero.
Shepard became a symbol to some, not a "hero of his day."
You use your term, I'll use mine. We both know exactly what I'm talking about.
-
You use your term, I'll use mine. We both know exactly what I'm talking about.
Yes we do.
Hyperbole.
:seeya:
-
:seeya:
Indeed. Would prefer getting back to substance.
:seeya:
-
What I actually said was that there was no one who was going to beat Johnson so soon after Kennedy's death and the establishment has taken FULL advantage of that fact by attempting to attribute Goldwater's loss to his conservatism rather than the circumstances.
OK, I see the distinction now. Thanx for clarifying.