Steve Schmidt Plots Strategy for GOP on Gays
In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Blade, Steve Schmidt, chief strategist for U.S. Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign, “urged Republicans to steer clear of divisive social issues if they are to remain viable candidates“
I think the Republican Party should not be seen by a broad majority of the electorate as focused with singularity on issues like gay marriage. . . . The attitudes of voters about gay marriage and about domestic partnership benefits for gay couples are changing very rapidly and for voters under the age of 30, they are completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy on these issues.
Exactly. He has a lot more to say on the issues (so read the whole thing), but I wish to focus on this, one of the things our party needs to do to win back its majority–avoid making social issues the focus. It’s why, I believe, we should put the focus on the taxes, spending and national security. If we do address social issues, say we believe they should be resolved by elected legislatures not appointed judges.
The most important thing is to avoid even the appearance that our leadership has made social issues their defining ideology.
Personally, I wish more Republicans would do as Utah’s GOP Governor John Huntsman (perhaps following the lead of his Nutmeg State counterpart) has done (as Schmidt points out) and come out in favor of state recognition of same-sex civil unions.
(H/t GayPatriot Reader Mr. Moderate)
109 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
What are these attitudes I keep hearing about? Are they completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy? What is Republican orthodoxy? Do Republicans have an orthodoxy — should they have one?
I believe states should decide for themselves the issue of same-sex marriage and I support DOMA. Am I an orthodox Republican who is at odds with all these 30-somethings and younger whose attitudes are so rapidly changing? Should I change my position (if not my mind) to attract voters, remain steadfast to attract voters, or remain steadfast despite the voters?
Comment by Ignatius — March 26, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - March 26, 2009
Addendum: I’m not running for office, but using “I” in reference to Republicans generally, i.e. the Party.
Comment by Ignatius — March 26, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - March 26, 2009
First of all, the Republican party and the social right need to correct a misunderstanding about the Culture Wars. The starting point for that is, The Religious Right Did Not Start the Culture Wars. The Culture Wars were started by leftists using the tools of government to push secular humanism … especially in the public schools. Basically, C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y was banished from public life, but secularists were free to use the schools and the courts to proselytize in favor of gay rights, abortion, and socialism while demeaning more traditional values. The politicization of the Religious Right was a defensive response to that.
If Republicans want to finesse that, one obvious course of action is a “Power to the People” approach to empower parents and families to protect their values, and their right to proclaim their values. This would include helping parents opt out of public schools or enhance the control of parents (not bureaucrats) over the curriculum, protecting the right of citizens and voters to define marriage (not courts), cutting off public funding to abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
Not only would that help the party extricate itself from divisive cultural issues, it would force the Democrats to explain why bureaucrats *should* be empowered to force their values on families and children instead of parents.
Unfortunately, what this compromise solution will not do is give the moderates the gratification of forcing social cons to the back of the bus, and will probably be insufficiently reassuring to the social conservatives as well. But, hey, that’s not a fight I have any control over.
Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 4:04 pm - March 26, 2009
GPW, this fits what I’ve been saying: America has changed profoundly as regards gays since 1992 – and Pat Buchanan’s ideas on gay issues did not work for the GOP, even back then.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - March 26, 2009
V, great comment. Giving parents protection and choice to raise their kids as they see fit, including but not limited to school choice, seems like a social issue that could work for the GOP.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 4:16 pm - March 26, 2009
V, why do you complain about the assault on traditional values when your blog has one (or two, or sometimes even three) every Thursday?
Comment by Attmay — March 26, 2009 @ 4:19 pm - March 26, 2009
Question: what, exactly, did Steve Schmidt do during the 2008 campaign that shows he knows a damn about “what Americans think”?
Besides, what’s wrong with social issues? Do you really think most Americans support what Oblahblah does, which is rewarding those who choose to be promiscuous, choose to have more children than they can afford, choose not to get an education, choose to be half-assed at work, and then choose to break the law, all at the expense of those who are responsible, take advantage of the opportunities offered them, and put in an honest day’s work? THAT’S a social issue.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 26, 2009 @ 4:21 pm - March 26, 2009
Decades of personal experience indicate to me that the social issues are the biggest barrier to otherwise-persuadable people being willing to consider themselves conservative or Republican. Lots of people are fiscally conservative but will not join a movement they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as being anti-women, anti-gay, anti-minority.
I have seen some of those people eventually convert anyway (I’m sort of one of them), usually because of a tipping point like 9/11 or some other heartfelt push-button issue that overwhelms other concerns. They then may discover more diversity of opinion on social issues than they realized among conservative crowds, but they would have been on board years earlier if it weren’t for that stigma.
For those for whom the socially conservative stuff is central to being a Republican or a conservative: That’s totally fine, but if that’s what it’s about then a lot of people are never going to get on board, or will awkwardly define themselves as some kind of libertarian (which I sort of do).
The problem is those who stay on the left because of these issues, which then gives more default support to Democrats and leftists on the fiscal and restriction of liberty stuff.
Comment by Ronald Hayden — March 26, 2009 @ 4:24 pm - March 26, 2009
NDT, exactly.
Nothing at all; just pick the right ones. America is declining not because gays are on the loose (referring back to the Buchanan days), but because parents don’t have school choice, religion is being chased from the public square, people in general are being trained in a thousand ways to not be personally responsible, etc.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 4:27 pm - March 26, 2009
I also think that those for whom social issues are very important are understandably the most vocal and at least at the state level tend to be overrepresented in party politics, meaning their activism puts them in a position to steer the party’s direction more so than Republicans who are more libertarian in inclination.
Do these social-cons drive voters away? They must drive at least some voters away, but it’s also true that in my experience they are the first to abandon the party when a candidate or current iteration of the party doesn’t adhere to their positions as strongly as they’d like.
Frankly, the economy is a social issue.
Comment by Ignatius — March 26, 2009 @ 5:37 pm - March 26, 2009
Lots of people are fiscally conservative but will not join a movement they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as being anti-women, anti-gay, anti-minority.
So they prefer movements that are pro-abortion, pro-promiscuity, and pro-bigotry.
Make that clear. If you support the Obama Party, you are supporting people who receive millions of dollars in cash from abortion providers, who demand that abortion be taught and encouraged in schools, who demand that abortion be commented on only positively, who refuse to say anything negative about abortion, and who believe that children in utero may be sacrificed at whatever whim their mother has.
If you support the Obama Party, you are supporting people who say that Federal contracts and services should be doled out on the basis of skin color and that preferential treatment should be given to other minorities.
If you support the Obama Party, you are supporting people who say that parent-child, sibling, and “households with more than one conjugal partner” should have full marriage rights.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 26, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - March 26, 2009
Well, well, well, the discussion we’ve been having here in the comments section about how the GOP needs to move away from the corrosive, divisive politics of social conservatism and the culture wars now goes mainstream.
Thanks for posting Steve Schmidt’s interview, Dan. As you often say, I hope the farRight commenters here who generally stand outside the GOP and toss rocks “will read the interview in its entirety”.
We will not grow as a Party moving toward victory if we keep listening to the harsh, corrosive cynics who asked AND once got the GOP to beat up on gays, beat up on immigrants, beat up on innercity youth, beat up on single underage moms, defend bigotry at every turn so that the few could feel empowered in a society that’s drifting away from their world view.
Glad it’s made the mainstream. Schmidt is correct on the prescription; now let’s see if the Party leaders have the courage of conviction to focus away from the culture wars no matter how hard RushBlow, Hannity, Beck or OReilly and Dobbs vent and focus on the issues that matter: fiscal affairs, economic concerns, world leadership and defending America’s natl security from terrorists.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 5:52 pm - March 26, 2009
I didn’t realize that the opposite of anti-gay was pro-promiscuity. Wow, that means Gingrich, Vitter, and McCain are pro-Obama? Awesome! Learn something new every day.
Maybe the GOP could win everyone over by constitutional amendment to ban adultery and huge fines for people getting divorced. That’ll win em over.
And BTW, the Obama party does not support full marriage equality.
They are in favor of civil unions.
Wasn’t Schmitt supposed to be the genious that was going to turn the McCain campaign around only to be spun in circles? I predict he will be on Rush’s show within 5 days apologizing if this interview gets out. Scmitt is a campaigner, a salesmen. He didn’t have anything to sell to the young people this time around. To win elections you need a marketing strategy and hating on gays, in his belief, is chasing away the next generation of perspective voters. And like it or not, the conservative movement does evolve over time.
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 26, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - March 26, 2009
Question: what, exactly, did Steve Schmidt do during the 2008 campaign that shows he knows a damn about “what Americans think�
Whoa! That *is* a puzzler.
Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - March 26, 2009
As fas as I know, most republicans agree with same sex civil unions. A support for marriage as the union between one ma and and one woman does not mean we are oppose to same sex civl unions. Provisons should be made for same sex civil unions to get the same benefits as a married couple.
I would like someone to name the republicans who are against same sex civil unions. The number wopuld be in the minority.
This is a misconception about republicans that we need to clear up. And perhaps that’s why we are called racist and bigots so often because many of our opinions are distorted and never corrected
Comment by KMX — March 26, 2009 @ 6:51 pm - March 26, 2009
You go KMX!
Lead the charge for Republicans to champion civil unions thus disorienting the left. I love it. I do suspect that the theocrats are the last to warm up to civil unions because they view that as the slippery slope to marriage.
But as reality sets in that gays are not a threat if the enter into civil unions, people are getting more in favor of it.
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 26, 2009 @ 7:09 pm - March 26, 2009
Boy, the soc-cons have more pings back and forth between them in this thread than one of those ol’ fashioned Atari “Pong” games that my son labels a relic.
What exactly did Steve do in the McCain campaign that shows he knows what Americans want?
Lots. He correctly perceived a shift in the voter’s sentiments toward marriage equality and not using gay marriage as a tool to beat up on gays –thereby disaffecting moderates, independents, soccer moms with a heart, etc.
Steve correctly argued for McCain to talk about climate change, not global warming, and to embrace reasonable, sensible alternative energy solutions as an extension of his long held conservation and environmental convictions. Of course, we still have folks inside the GOP who think climate change is the same as AlGore’s global warming nonsense… but then, they don’t have strong records on conservation of American resources or the environment going for them, either… and Americans hold outdoor conservation more dearly than they do melting polar ice caps.
Steve correctly focused the campaign on real, workable economic issues even though McCain, with a slip of the tongue, nearly killed that important focus of Steve’s input on the campaign. Of course now, even a trologdyte deep in his cave, has to admit that the American people’s concerns about their pension fund, their retirement fund, the housing collapse, the WallSt and MainSt slides were prescient.
I know it’s great to ask a set-up question like “When did you stop beating your wife, Mr Mayor?” and have the ol’ Atari gametable go on high ping alert… but the truth is that Steve, as director of McCain’s strategy, did a lot for him that demonstrated he understood where the American people were going to be in the 08 election.
Did he save McCain from natl and internl events? No. But, frankly, neither did Sr. Sarah Palin from the Flying Nuns in NaNookNorth.
Sigh, I was really hoping that Dan’s post might get you guys to read the interview. It’s clear from some of the comments here, you’ve dismissed his intelligent insights because he was McCain baggage. How very shortsighted.
Dan, I wonder when the rock throwers outside the GOP tent will stop the destructive games? Maybe it’s the day that the Party moves to the right of the Libertarians? Even then, I doubt the rocks would stop. Sigh.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 7:32 pm - March 26, 2009
Dan writes: “… one of the things our party needs to do to win back its majority–avoid making social issues the focus. It’s why, I believe, we should put the focus on the taxes, spending and national security. If we do address social issues, say we believe they should be resolved by elected legislatures not appointed judges. The most important thing is to avoid even the appearance that our leadership has made social issues their defining ideology.”
Dan, perfectly said and right on target and I agree 100%. We came to that exact same conclusion at our GOP State Party convention and our political campaign workshops for candidates has an extensive, itemized discussion of what issues candidates for state and statewide and local offices should categorically resist being baited into debating.
One of the Democrat Party workbook binders we had on display showed a page that advised Democrat candidates to ask GOP opponents if they think images of God should be displayed openly in a workplace… ask if the GOP opponents really believe gays are preying on our children and turning the Internet into a cesspool of porn… ask if the GOP opponents would support the draft or drilling for oil in the Gt Lakes.
It was incredible. We need to stay off the social issues focus that lead our Party out of power and into the wilderness.
Well said! Thanks.
(BTW, there’s a comment hiding in the spamfilter just before this one).
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 7:42 pm - March 26, 2009
sadly for you losers, the people who most strongly identify as “republican” are the people for whom social issues like gay rights are the most important. most of these people couldn’t tell you what the definition of a progressive tax system or a tariff is, but they sure know what a fag looks like.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 26, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - March 26, 2009
in other words, you’re screwed.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 26, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - March 26, 2009
and not in the good way
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 26, 2009 @ 8:46 pm - March 26, 2009
bob notes “sadly for you losers, the people who most strongly identify as “republican†are the people for whom social issues like gay rights are the most important.”
Well, bob, you’re probably right on that score. In fact, it’s probably not people who are actually GOPers who think social issues like gay rights are critical to defeat or else the social fabric of the world will be rendered & torn, villages will be plundered, schools will go back to teaching creationism and gays will think they can get away with solicitation of minors and public sex. It’s the voters who are behavorial GOPers. Real GOPers aren’t like that.
Of course, as you know, those behavorial GOPers are all just silly nonsense and it’s why solid real GOPers and campaign officials like Steve Schmidt of the McCain-Palin Campaign have said it’s high time to back off selling red meat to that crowd of angry white men and get back to the business of electing more GOPers to office, recruiting good candidates who will win elections and not use elections to identify and weed out people opposed to a return to the gold standard or silver notes.
It’s always been the behavioral-GOPers, the in & out voter, the alternatively passionate or depressingly disaffected voters who have moved the Party farther to the Right than even Ronald Reagan would have thought prudent.
The elections of 2010 and 2012 cannot be about gay marriage, English Only, no US troops under UN Commanders, lifting restrictions on assault weapons, public sale of dum-dum bullets, mass deportation and forced marches for illegal laborers seeking a better life for their families, or a vast trash bin of other soc-con dinosaurs from an earlier, by-gone era.
But you’re wrong when you call the folks who author this blog or the people who threaderate here with some regularity “losers”, bob. They aren’t. What they are are you next taskmasters and if you still think that Bush was bad, after 4 short years of Obama, the GOP who gets elected in 2012 is going to make you wish for Bush’s noblis no blige rule to return.
Just sayin’, is all.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 9:30 pm - March 26, 2009
so because you say they’re not the “real” GOPers, they’re not? frankly, if they vote GOP, are registered GOP, show up at the GOP rallies, etc., they are just as much GOP as you. we’ll start taking your party seriously again when you lose that branch of the party.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 26, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - March 26, 2009
Remember when all of us crazy paranoid right-wingers said that if we didn’t control the border that the violence would spill over into Phoenix, El Paso, and San Diego? Wasn’t that just crazy-talk? What were we smokin’?
Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 9:58 pm - March 26, 2009
V offers: “Remember when all of us crazy paranoid right-wingers said that if we didn’t control the border that the violence would spill over into Phoenix, El Paso, and San Diego? Wasn’t that just crazy-talk?”
Gee, V, I don’t remember you bringing up that argument at all. For you it was, if I recall your words: “I’m sick and tired of being Mexico’s bitch” as in helping Mexicans find legit work opportunities in the States, providing compassionate care if they became sick while here, etc.
And second, I recall you complaining mostly that the Mexicans would be taking jobs away from young white workers in the skilled trades –and I think you even referenced your son’s employment future as evidence of that. Of course, back then, Mexican legal immigrants, legal alien workers weren’t doing those jobs but that didn’t stop you from waging the argument. And the illegal aliens were even farther down the labor scale and into menial, below-state wage level jobs.
I guess why didn’t those crazy rightwingers explain what they meant! Or is this just another case of hindsight improving memory?
By the way, if you’re really worried about the violence crossing the borders, V, I guess you’re now ready to embrace Obama’s plan to strictly regulate guns and rifle sales in the border states? And, as of last night, the new hires over at Treasury are set to advise him to include ammo sales, night assist equipment and other items to the potential ban.
Oh yeah and they will be seeking changes in fed statute to take on the Border Militia folk… people I had the opportunity to spend some time with once.
Thank goodness you had in the insight to suggest turning our govt over to the farLeft and Obama, eh?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - March 26, 2009
oh, this is just beautiful to watch.
*leans back, cracks open a beer*
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 26, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - March 26, 2009
But … but … family values don’t stop at the border! And people who thought it was important to secure the borders were “chicken-shits.” John McCain said so, and he knows more about the border than anyone. Just ask him.
Yeah, Bush and McCain were real concerned about border violence… when it was border agents shooting drug dealers. Otherwise… not so much.
Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 11:09 pm - March 26, 2009
Social issues will remain a focus as long as liberal Republicans and Democrats continue to parrot the liberal bodies of the APA(s) and the ABA in order to normalize neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias without replicable, empirical data to support their position. If you are knowingly placing children in “borderline” caretaker environments, regardless of the gender or socioeconomic status of the caretaker environment, you had better be able to prove that children are not psychologically harmed.
Secondly, in as much as the LGBT political community would like to normalize sadomasochism and transvestitism like the Swedes, you will have to overcome the body of evidence from the pioneers of gender reassignment surgery, Johns Hopkins University, where is was stated that gender identity disorder is not cured through gender reassignment.
Comment by RJLigier — March 27, 2009 @ 12:31 am - March 27, 2009
#9-You said it! I would only add that there are more social issues than that. How about coddling criminals? The people who are coming over our borders illegally? Part of the problem is that the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media love to focus on TWO issues-same-sex marriage and abortion. To many, myself included, they are important. But they are not all that I care about. I want the government to stop coddling LOSERS! I want the government to allow for choice in education. I want religion to be truly free in this nation. I want all of us to be able to take responsibility for what we do. And, FTR, I have no problem with civil unions. I just do not want marriage to be totally redefined. My wife’s thought on the subject is this. ANYTIME two men want to be together in a committed relationship is something to celebrate.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — March 27, 2009 @ 12:59 am - March 27, 2009
V offers “Yeah, Bush and McCain were real concerned about border violence… when it was border agents shooting drug dealers. Otherwise… not so much”
Umm, so much so that Bush gave Presidential pardons to Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean and commuted their sentences.
Nice dodge, tho, V on accepting responsibility for setting up what will likely be the singlest largest gun squeeze and weapon regulatory initiative in history by the Obama Admin.
Yeah, we can all just bet you are concerned for those poor defenseless borders and the increasing violence in Mexico… because, as we all know from you, Mexicans are a shiftless lot of low breeding criminals.
Yep, we should go with that.
How about HillaryClinton announcing that the US will be providing increased funds for Mexicans to protect their homeland, their streets, their govt buildings and judicial offices?
Did I get to say “Thanks V” for putting HillaryClinton at the top of the State Dept? Yeah, she’s sure teaching all those Americans and Republicans some good lessons now… right after she helped Hamas get it’s new pound of flesh… and Indonesia get its new pound of flesh… and China and Japan. Heck, she isn’t even done with the first 100 days.
Way to go on that one, V. She’s all money and glam and gams. Heck, skip the faux-outrage over the Stimulus bill… she’s gonna personally bankrupt us just in State Dept foreign aid handouts.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 1:21 am - March 27, 2009
One of the Democrat Party workbook binders we had on display showed a page that advised Democrat candidates to ask GOP opponents if they think images of God should be displayed openly in a workplace… ask if the GOP opponents really believe gays are preying on our children and turning the Internet into a cesspool of porn… ask if the GOP opponents would support the draft or drilling for oil in the Gt Lakes.
And of course, the Obama Lites that Michigan-Matt represents fold up like a cheap paper fan when confronted with these.
Here’s your answers to those, Michigan-Matt:
1. “Sure. Don’t you agree that people should have the freedom to express their religious beliefs, as the First Amendment guarantees?”
2. “Yes, several do. For example, here are gay people in San Francisco stating that taking children to public sex fairs is an ‘educational experience’, here’s public-school students being marched to City Hall to participate in a gay wedding and used for publicity shots, and here’s a study from Great Britain in which gays are advocating sex be taught to five-year-old children. Do you consider criticism of this behavior ‘homophobic’ and believe that society should just accept all of this?”
3. “Yes. If our country is in extreme danger, just as we were in World War II, we should be more than willing to support the draft as a means of protecting ourselves. Furthermore, if the United States were able to produce more of our own oil and gas more effectively, that would mean less money being sent to countries that are openly hostile to us and make us more able to level out price shocks such as the Obama Party Congress brought about last summer.”
The Obama Party has Obama Lites like yourself on the ropes, Michigan-Matt, because you are just like your idol McCain; so desperate to be liked that you’ll throw any core principle or any person you like under the bus just to avoid negative media coverage. Have some balls and fight for what you believe, or just join the Obama Party and save the rest of us the trouble.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 1:58 am - March 27, 2009
Sorry NDXXX, but I’m no ObamaLite… just like you’re no Folsom St Fair pedophile. Why you do these kind of linkage thingies is puzzling.
What you miss in your fogg is that we are fighting for what we believe in and winning, NDXXX. The Party is moving back toward center. The Party is staying away from divisive, corrosive anti-politic soc-con Litmus Test issues that killed the Party… twice now. The current RNC Chair is proving he’s a moderate on social issues, conservative on fiscal affairs.
In fact, the movement is so significant that even blogs like GP are now posting pieces about how the Party needs to move away from those divisive soc-con issues, stay on task and topic, win elections. That big sucking sound you hear is the Hot Air going out of the gay soc-cons’ favorite spot on the web… whoooosh.
Yeah, NDXXX, actually try to win elections –not lose ‘em for an abject lesson to a hypothetical American who isn’t quite as pissed as the gay soc-cons think and who’s boot isn’t going to be filled further with hate, spite, culture wars and more piss from angry white guys.
McCain isn’t my idol, as you dishonestly and shamelessly try to claim, NDXXX. Anymore than John Wayne Gacey or Jeffrey Dahmer were your idols before they got the right kind of shaft.
I’ve watched often when you’ve pulled out the shamelessly dishonest tactic of trying to tar your perceived opponent with “you and your pals” crap.
I just don’t get. It’s not that our side doesn’t have nutts, NDXXX. We do. Big ones. They’re called the Winner’s Nutts. Yours, however, if you’ll just look down, are kicked to the curb.
And please, no attempt to link my support of marriage equality with your nonsense that means I want people to marry their hog, their cousin or their 11 yr old Japanese house boy. That dawg just don’t hunt anymore.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 2:30 am - March 27, 2009
Wait NDXXX, before you check to see if your nutts are lying in the street’s curb… I saw this line from you “Have some balls and fight for what you believe, or just join the Obama Party and save the rest of us the trouble.”
The key phrase amongst the lathered foam is “the rest of us”.
Are you trying to tell me you are a Republican? Good God, I would have never known that from your earlier statements here and in places like IGF or Malcontent.
You actually think of yourself as a GOPer? You’re not just a Libertarian loon loose on the lake?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 2:36 am - March 27, 2009
Yeah, NDXXX, actually try to win elections
And that quite nicely demonstrates the point, Michigan-Matt; the only principles that you have revolve around winning elections. You’ll throw anyone and everything else under the bus as too “divisive” if you think it will hurt your chances of getting elected.
The Republican Party used to be about doing the right thing, not about winning elections. But you and your fellow “moderate” ilk are so busy trying to be everyone’s friends and suck up that you’ve totally set aside any sort of principled stance in favor of popularity.
And what’s hilarious is that what did it get you in the 2008 McCain campaign? Nothing. Indeed, even McCain himself admits that his primary boost came from the addition of Sarah Palin, who you and yours shrieked was too “divisive”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 2:46 am - March 27, 2009
No NDXXX, it is not just a matter of pragmatic politics over principles as you like to paint it with that imaginary black&white only brush.
It’s what political parties are supposed to be all about.
About winning elections. About recruiting good candidates. It’s about gaining power to advance good policy. Once you’re in, it’s about policy. It’s about principles.
But, what you and V and others seem to fail to grasp is that political parties have to first be about winning elections.
All this “ObamaLite” and “moderate” baggage you keep tossing about makes me think I’m down in the steerage class after the Titanic has hit the iceberg. Good God man, I am no ObamaLite. Nor was JohnMcCain.
What you can’t accept is that the rest of the Party isn’t interested in having you keep pissing in the boots as the angry white man discontent and inconsolable at life. We don’t need no stickin’ culture war battles no matter how precious you think they really, really are to your perception of the fabric of society.
Here’s the rub: if you really believed in all that crap you espouse, you would have never allowed Obama to get into power, turn the govt over to the radical farLeft and likely screw the Courts for at least a generation or more.
I’m sorry NDXXX, but I don’t buy your outrage about the immoral condition of what might happen to some if marriage is extended to pigs, cousins or 11 yr old Japanese houseboys. It isn’t going to be. It won’t be.
Besides, you dolt, I didn’t even agree we should have gay marriage. I’m the guy who’s been in favor of extending the benefits of married couples to gays.
Gheesh.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 3:11 am - March 27, 2009
Before you rip off another missive NDXXX, please respond to my comment above… “Sorry NDXXX, but I’m no ObamaLite… just like you’re no Folsom St Fair pedophile. Why you do these kind of linkage thingies is puzzling.” Why do you?
And why do you keep bringing up the same tired, discredited argument that if gay marriage happens it will mean marriage for pigs, cousins, multiple cousins and underage kids?
I mean, really now, do you honestly think that’s a logical extension to someone who might argue (as I don’t by the way) in favor of gay marriage?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 3:17 am - March 27, 2009
About winning elections. About recruiting good candidates. It’s about gaining power to advance good policy. Once you’re in, it’s about policy. It’s about principles.
LOL…..so what you’re saying is that you can’t be honest about what your principles and policy are when you’re trying to get elected.
If you’re telling me that you have to lie to people to get elected, why on earth should I believe a word you say about what you’ll do once you’re in office? V the K put it best the other day; the choice presented in this election was between a fruitcake and a backstabber. I’ll take the former over the latter any day, because then I know who not to trust or to give the benefit of the doubt.
Here’s the rub: if you really believed in all that crap you espouse, you would have never allowed Obama to get into power, turn the govt over to the radical farLeft and likely screw the Courts for at least a generation or more.
Or perhaps I take a more long-term view of things, which is that, if Obama is as bad as I think he is, public outrage against him will take care of matters far faster and more effectively. Your logic is not unlike the gay leftists who make apologies for Obama Party homophobes by claiming the Republicans would be worse.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 3:34 am - March 27, 2009
i love that people like NDT exist, because as long as they do, and as long as they keep voting republican, republicans will remain the party of “white trash pride”.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 7:45 am - March 27, 2009
Translation:“Failed architect of losing campaign instructs how to replicate his losses”
Perhaps we can get Bob Dole to tell us how to win next.
GPW,
You keep posting pieces by or about people who agree with you that Republicans should de-emphasize social issues if they want to win. I, and others, have pointed out the facts that contradict this opinion just as many times but you have yet to address them. Perhaps you haven’t seen them, so I repeat them as succinctly as I can, in no particular order:
1. Republicans DID de-emphasize social issues in 2008 and they did not win, they lost. For the first time in my lifetime, social issues were virtually off the table in the national races. For the first time in my life abortion, gun-control, and other social issues weren’t even mentioned at the network presidential debates — and yet a Democrat got more than 50% of the vote for the first time since 1976.
2. The only places where social issues were on the table, like gay marriage in deep-blue CA, the conservative position won handily even though Obama won the state overwhelmingly.
3. President Bush and Republicans addressed NO social issues that I can think of from 2004 to 2008 and they got their asses whooped in 06 and 08. All the social issues that they addressed, from gay marriage, to funding embryonic stem cell research, to constitutional review of euthanasia cases were all addressed between 2000 and 2004, and Republicans won even bigger in 2002 and 2004 than in 2000.
4. John McCain did WORSE among young people, and worse among social moderates than George Bush. He did worse in the cities and worse in the suburbs than Bush. He did worse in the northeast and midwest.
5. The growing demographic that Republicans need most to make inroads with in order to win are African Americans and Latino Americans, the same groups who SHARE socially conservative principles but do not share conservative fiscal principles. If we abandon social conservative policy in order to “win” as you suggest, then, in reality, we lose with those demographics by even larger percentages — as John McCain did.
6. All the exit polls in 2004, just four short years ago, show the reason that President Bush and Republicans won was because of “values voters”, not in spite of them. Democrats acknowledged this and tried to make huge overtures towards values voters.
And just to re-emphasize the point…social conservatism WON in the very same deep blue California in which the very socially moderate John McCain got his a** kicked.
You keep promoting this view that is blatantly contradicted by the facts — which is, I guess, why you, Frum, Schmidt, etc… keep ignoring them.
Comment by American Elephant — March 27, 2009 @ 8:34 am - March 27, 2009
Ok, I lied about the succinct part.
Comment by American Elephant — March 27, 2009 @ 8:37 am - March 27, 2009
#39: yep. to paraphrase, you’re screwed.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 8:42 am - March 27, 2009
Your logic is not unlike the gay leftists who make apologies for Obama Party homophobes by claiming the Republicans would be worse.
I think “Obama will be worse” was the campaign theme that led to the McCain Landslide of 2008 that didn’t happen.
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 9:00 am - March 27, 2009
AE, what do you want the gay community to do? How can we be a viable part of the GOP?
Comment by Jimbo — March 27, 2009 @ 9:01 am - March 27, 2009
A humble suggestion: Put the best interest of your country ahead of your personal interests. Or, more accurately, you take responsibility for your personal interests, contentment and security. And politically, you elect people (of either party) whose policies are fiscally responsible, which will protect national security, and that will preserve liberty.
Unless those notions are too dangerously extreme for you.
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 9:18 am - March 27, 2009
V the K, sounds like a decent enough plan. Now why can’t the GOP (or even the Democratic Party, for that matter) concentrate on those issues. Sounds like that could be a winning strategy for the GOP.
AE, I’m not disputing your data, but I’m not sure about your conclusions. There are a lot of other factors that go into whether or not a particular strategy is helpful or not. In other words, had McCain been more socially conservative, I think he would have lost by more votes, despite data that may appear to show otherwise. The economy was different now than it was four years ago. Also, voters tend to get tired of a political party after several years in office.
Comment by Pat — March 27, 2009 @ 10:15 am - March 27, 2009
Let me put this as delicately as I can… the political class is stupid, corrupt, and greedy. Our political class is as intellectually inbred as the Hapsburgs. It’s insular, and it only talks to itself, and it only looks out for its own interests.
This isn’t the way it was supposed to be. Think of all the hatred directed at Joe the Plumber. It’s so sad. America was meant to be governed by Joe the Plumbers, not lawyers who pass their senate and house seats from generation to generation.
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 10:30 am - March 27, 2009
But, what you and V and others seem to fail to grasp is that political parties have to first be about winning elections.
Exactly. That’s why they exist.
Comment by Ignatius — March 27, 2009 @ 10:41 am - March 27, 2009
Actually, what I fail to grasp is why… with all the horrors being inflicted on the UUnited States by the Teleprompter-in-Chief… so many Republicans are directing their fire not at Obama, but on the part of their coalition most opposed to him.
It seems counter-productive, if winning elections is the goal.
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 11:23 am - March 27, 2009
OT: Obama’s recent statements re. the surge in Afghanistan:
“I don’t ask for this support lightly,” he said. “These are challenging times, resources are stretched, but the American people must understand that this is a down-payment on our future.
“I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the Taleban and al-Qaeda.”
Comment by Ignatius — March 27, 2009 @ 11:34 am - March 27, 2009
Unless the Republicans think that telling the social right, “We hate you, you suck, we’ll never enact your policies… but keep voting for us and giving us your money” is a winning message.
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 11:36 am - March 27, 2009
#44 I may agree in principal with some sentiments of this statement:
“Put the best interest of your country ahead of your personal interests. Or, more accurately, you take responsibility for your personal interests, contentment and security. And politically, you elect people (of either party) whose policies are fiscally responsible, which will protect national security, and that will preserve liberty. ”
Sounds a bit like, “above all, Germany” does it not? Country first, your personal intrests come later. Only later for gays means never, you get to sit at the kids table of policy debate. We want your vote but dont want to help or lift a finger. And when the policy debate happens? BAM, DOMA comes out to rally the conservative theocratic vote. Very off-putting and hard to sell to the gay community.
The dems have it easy, they sell “we understand and we want to help you”. The republicans on the other hand are selling “I hear you and I want to give you national security, fiscal restraint and the liberty to do what you want” Huh? And when it comes time for my liberty time in the spotlight, its republicans who tell me “hey you can’t do that” So then I have to go find voters who will align with me (just like republicans do when they want a policy) to fight for my freedom to exist, have fair housing, keep a job. Just remember it was not too long ago that sodomy was illegal, and enforced. Remeber back when being gay was considered a mental disease? Remember when city police would crack heads of “faggots” and harras them? Stonewall anyone?
Its a great concept to sell liberty. I love it. But you can’t sell it to the gay community because you have already set yourself up in another market. Liberty is great and all. But what was an african american to do about injustice? make an impassioned plea the conservative (democrats) in the south on the grounds of liberty? That all man are created equal, endowed by their Creator, et al? I think not. Just like now with gays, where does a gay citizen go to have a voice in a politcal movement? Its not because the dems promise the moon and the stars. Its because they are at least allowed to speak and be heard. The State of Delaware is taking up non discrimination right now and it probably won’t pass on a non party line vote. But the gays will still be there tomorrow pushing for dem causes.
Think about it. What would happen, say, if the republican party came out and said “we are strong on smaller gov’t and lower taxes, but in order to own a gun, you must belong to a “well regulated militia” as per the constitution” I mean, it would be for the good of the country, right? Put country above your own personal intrests, right? It says it right there in the constitution, right?
It is my humble opinion that conservatives are always the last block to progress. As Peter Griffen said on Family Guy “The two symbols of the Republican Party, the elephant and old white men afraid of change” Gays want change, and evertime they fight for it, here come conservatives on the other side. If the cause is just and in the name if liberty, then conservatives shoud be for it. But then in comes conservatives own personal intrests and there you go, no gay marriage, fred, civil unions, etc. And not because my liberty would infringe in any way on your liberty.
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 27, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - March 27, 2009
i love that people like NDT exist, because as long as they do, and as long as they keep voting republican, republicans will remain the party of “white trash prideâ€.
Yes, boob; we know that gay leftists and Obama Party members look at people like myself who got an education, work hard, save, spend wisely, pay their taxes, don’t purchase things they can’t afford, act responsibly, have religious beliefs, vote, own guns, and the sort to be “white trash”.
But that’s typical of the left. They can’t live up to this sort of behavior, so they try to brand it as abnormal and wrong. Just like how gay-sex liberals like boob try to claim that people who oppose taking children to a sex fair are “close-minded”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 12:51 pm - March 27, 2009
Its a great concept to sell liberty. I love it.
No you don’t, Chuck. You want a guarantee of “fair housing”. You want a guarantee of “a job”. You want a guarantee of “benefits from the government for my choice of sex partners”.
And since you want all of those things, you’re better off in the Obama Party. They will support and endorse your “I’m a victim, everyone else should give me everything” viewpoint, because that’s what they are; they’re a party of victims and parasites who spend more time whining about what other people have than going out and earning it themselves.
If you want gay-sex marriage, move to Canada. If you start whining about how that would cost you your job and your house and make you pay more in taxes, then what you are making clear is that your job and house and what you pay in taxes are more important than gay-sex marriage. If that’s the case, then stop screaming about how you need it so much, because obviously you’re not willing to give up other things to get it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 1:02 pm - March 27, 2009
#53
No you don’t, Chuck. You want a guarantee of “fair housingâ€. You want a guarantee of “a jobâ€. You want a guarantee of “benefits from the government for my choice of sex partnersâ€.
I own my own house. I am self employed. And I pay for my own benefits.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
But thank you for making my point. You dont have to go very far in the conservative movement to find the venom that chases people away.
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 27, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - March 27, 2009
I think Chuck’s philosophy can fairly be characterized as, “Since liberty won’t promise to deliver the social outcomes I want, I’ll opt for tyranny.”
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - March 27, 2009
I own my own house. I am self employed. And I pay for my own benefits.
And yet, you support having the government tell you you can’t refuse to lease out or sell your property to whomever you see fit, you support the government telling you you have to do work for people who you find disagreeable or have to hire or keep people you don’t want to hire or keep, and you support the government increasing your costs to cover other people who don’t pay.
All that because the Obama Party blows sunshine up your ass.
That is to what V the K is referring. What the Obama Party has figured out is that gays like yourself are so desperate for reinforcement that they will sell every other principle down the river to be liked. You can’t find value or virtue in your job, your house, and your self-reliance; you need the government to GIVE it to you.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - March 27, 2009
I own my own house. I am self employed. And I pay for my own benefits.
And yet, you support having the government tell you you can’t refuse to lease out or sell your property to whomever you see fit, you support the government telling you you have to do work for people who you find disagreeable or have to hire or keep people you don’t want to hire or keep, and you support the government increasing your costs to cover other people who don’t pay.
All that because the Obama Party blows sunshine up your posterior.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 1:28 pm - March 27, 2009
V the K,
While I find Chuck’s reducum ad Fatherland a bit crass I think he does have a point, unless I miss-parsed your words.
We need leaders elected who believe in due process, and the rule of law. Not the rule of feelings, not the law of mob rule. While its true that such leaders will be fisically consevative and strong on national defense, it’s different than electing people who promise security but don’t tell how.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 27, 2009 @ 1:30 pm - March 27, 2009
And what’s funny, V, is that, when he doesn’t get the outcomes he wants and is told he needs to take responsibility, he screams about how conservatives are venomous and hate gays.
It’s funny. In theory, he’s old enough and has claimed to be enough of a nominal Republican to have gone through the welfare wars when the Obama Party shrieked that supporting welfare-to-work programs, which disallowed staying on welfare in perpetuity, meant that you hated the poor and that the Obama Party was the one actually looking out for their interests. But now he’s insisting that the Republican Party’s refusal to guarantee him a job and housing because he’s gay indicates that Republicans hate gays.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 1:33 pm - March 27, 2009
I’m betting your the kind of guys, if you ever made it outdoors for exercise, who somehow never played team sports, never belonged, was always outside the normal circle of friends, spent a bit too much time in fantasy land playing with the kittens… if you know what I mean.
That’s a bet you would lose, as ILC, John in Dublin, GPW, EssEm, and several others would tell you.
But what they’ll also tell you is that I am not afraid to express an opinion, no matter how contrary it is to what “the circle” wants, and that I will argue that point adamantly if I think it is right.
There’s the difference between us, M-M; you equate being right with being popular, and I believe wholeheartedly that they are quite often quite different things.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 1:51 pm - March 27, 2009
I am just glad MM is to devoted to civil discourse to resort to petty insults and derogatory descriptions of other posters.
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 2:03 pm - March 27, 2009
Livewire gets my point. Rule of law, due process.
And when there is an injustice where does one go? To the process. Get people elected, petitions your currently elected officials and implore them to change said injustice.
I find getting kicked out of an apartment for no other reason than being gay an injustice.
I find being fired for no other reason than being gay an injustice.
And whether you find these to be injustices or not, I have a right to work to change them. If I come up with zero results than so be it. I tried. But I suggest to you that history is on my side. In 50 yrs, conservatives won’t be talking about the gay issue because it will be a reminder of yet another obstructionist position they took, just like Jim Crow in the south.
Can we all agree that the way African Americans were treated in the south an injustice? Freedom and liberty for all, just be sure and be out of town by sundown and don’t ever use the front door.
Need I remind everyone that the Founding Fathers were the radical progressives of their time? The conservative position was to stay with the Crown. They, the FF, sought to make change, first by apealling to England, then protests and finally revolution. Paradoxially, conservatives today embrace these Founding Fathers and documents and don’t want anything to change. Yet this nation is founded on change and righting the wrongs of their time.
I dont think tyranny will be necessary on my issues, thank you. I am doing just fine with appealing to leaders and the occasional march on Washington.
And as for Canada? Never been there. But I do know they didn’t get sucked into the banking meltdown like we Americans did. Why? Regulations and oversight prevented them. Regulations and oversight: 1 Unregulated free market capitalism: 0
Thanks for the debate. I do so appreciate it.
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 27, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - March 27, 2009
And as for Canada? Never been there. But I do know they didn’t get sucked into the banking meltdown like we Americans did. Why? Regulations and oversight prevented them. Regulations and oversight: 1 Unregulated free market capitalism: 0
Oops.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 2:31 pm - March 27, 2009
I know I’m supposed to be something of a total bastard, but I think I recognize the difference between attacking a person’s policies, arguments, and behavior and just tossing around schoolyard insults.
I’m thinking the uncivil stuff you and V and ILC have become famous for here is because of a deepseated patholgical resentment of people who… are popular.
When Cordelia on Buffy the Vampire Slayer said things like this, it usually had some brio and pinache to it. But, not everyone can write good teen dialogue like Joss Whedon.
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 2:40 pm - March 27, 2009
Need I remind everyone that the Founding Fathers were the radical progressives of their time? The conservative position was to stay with the Crown. They, the FF, sought to make change, first by apealling to England, then protests and finally revolution.
The hilarious part of you invoking that, Chuck, is that the leftist gays and Obama Party with which you have allied yourself are running that whole process exactly in reverse. You are demanding revolution first, THEN thinking about the consequences.
The reason you’re not getting anything out of your appeals now is because you just spent months mailing white powder to churches, attacking little old ladies with crosses, and barricading businesses whose owners made political donations, all because you didn’t like the outcome of a vote. You and your fellow Obama Party leftists have an unfortunate habit of appealing for help from religious people AFTER you’ve stormed their church, thrown used condoms at them, and desecrated the Host.
The Founding Fathers were conservatives. They did not throw out everything they’d learned or inherited from England; they took what they had and improved on it. Realize that what ultimately provoked the colonies into open revolt was the British government RESCINDING many of the privileges and powers that had belonged to the colonial assemblies, and that a great deal of the governmental structure of the United States in the post-colonial era was a restoration of what they had already had. They weren’t trying to overturn the world; they were trying to get back what they had previously had and lost.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 2:41 pm - March 27, 2009
Need you be reminded that you declined to be a part of the civil discourse here. You said to Dan’s and Bruce’s simple request for a reutrn to a civil tone: “No. I disagree.â€
But you agreed to it, M-M.
You’re holding V the K responsible to a standard he never agreed to in an attempt to avoid being held responsible to one that you did.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - March 27, 2009
I’m thinking the uncivil stuff you and V and ILC have become famous for here is because of a deepseated patholgical resentment of people who have found acceptance in society, do fit in, have friends and -God forbid- are popular.
Or, Matt, what is more likely is that you simply think people are abnormal because, if they “have found acceptance in society, do fit in, have friends and -God forbid- are popular”, obviously they wouldn’t ever disagree with you.
Given that Paris Hilton would fit your definition of people who “have found acceptance in society, do fit in, have friends and -God forbid- are popular”, I think we can fairly well establish that it’s not exactly correlated with whether or not one is normal. What it IS correlated with is a willingness to do anything to BE accepted, fit in, have friends, and be popular, which means that you are more than willing to set aside that in which you believe to be liked.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 2:53 pm - March 27, 2009
…you just spent months mailing white powder to churches, attacking little old ladies with crosses, and barricading businesses whose owners made political donations, all because you didn’t like the outcome of a vote…
This is the standard argument leveled at liberals here at GP: Naked bigotry accusing all liberals of naked bigotry. This isn’t debate — it’s a flat-footed attempt to draw a (false) distinction between false sides of a debate and it is employed in every single thread in which a liberal commenter tries to engage discussion.
Liberalism fails on its own without employing dishonesty in order to discredit it.
Comment by Ignatius — March 27, 2009 @ 2:57 pm - March 27, 2009
I honestly don’t know the answer to this, but did HRC, NGLTF, The Advocate, or any similar organization condemn the physical attacks or harassment of Prop 8 supporters? Did the ACLU? Did the Democratic Party of California? Did any liberal California politician condemn the attacks?
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 3:04 pm - March 27, 2009
This is the standard argument leveled at liberals here at GP: Naked bigotry accusing all liberals of naked bigotry. This isn’t debate — it’s a flat-footed attempt to draw a (false) distinction between false sides of a debate and it is employed in every single thread in which a liberal commenter tries to engage discussion.
Emphasis added for the irony-deficient.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - March 27, 2009
I honestly don’t know the answer to this, but did HRC, NGLTF, The Advocate, or any similar organization condemn the physical attacks or harassment of Prop 8 supporters? Did the ACLU? Did the Democratic Party of California? Did any liberal California political figure condemn the attacks? And if there was condemnation, was it unequivocal, or was it weaselly?
Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - March 27, 2009
Taking what they had from learned England and improving on it. Hmmm, sounds mighty progressive.
White powder to churches? Not sure what you are talking about. Something with Prop 8 I presume? I do not condone this sort of behavior. From burning churches in the south to white powder in churches in california, extremism is desctructive and distruptive to the process.
But I would boycott business’. I am sure you would support me on this given earlier stated desire to have the freedom in hiring/firing and housing.
If my issues do not pass, I will go back to work and try again.
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 27, 2009 @ 3:15 pm - March 27, 2009
Chuck, he paints liberals with the same wide brush, feigning debate. He’s not able to distinguish between what he reads about and individuals about which he knows nothing. Thus, he’s a bigot.
Comment by Ignatius — March 27, 2009 @ 3:22 pm - March 27, 2009
But I would boycott business’. I am sure you would support me on this given earlier stated desire to have the freedom in hiring/firing and housing.
Absolutely. You are free to do as you wish with your own money. It’s when you start barricading businesses, or attacking those who don’t join you in your own boycott, that you create a problem. Individual expression fine, demanding that everyone else do what you say, not so much.
I do not condone this sort of behavior.
“Condone” and “condemn” are two different words.
He’s not able to distinguish between what he reads about and individuals about which he knows nothing.
Correction, Ignatius. I AM aware of what individuals here have flatly condemned the behavior of the gay community in regard to Proposition 8 and what individuals here have tried to avoid doing exactly that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 3:37 pm - March 27, 2009
Ignatius points out “Liberalism fails on its own without employing dishonesty in order to discredit it.”
That is abundantly true Ignatius. But there’s this deepseeded or deepseated need to kick a liberal in the ass around here… and sometimes even a GOP moderate or too if they survive the constant hazing.
The people who need to hear your point are, unfortunately, flat out stone deaf in both ears. And they ain’t the liberals.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 5:12 pm - March 27, 2009
[Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 5:25 pm - March 27, 2009
condemn: to pass an adverse judgment on; disapprove of strongly; censure
condone: to forgive, pardon, or overlook (an offense)
So to not condone, I do not forgive, pardon or overlook said offence. In other words, I pass adverse judgement.
But if it makes you happy, I both condone and condemn these actions.
You condemn these actions, but do you censure them? Or are we sticking with transitive verbs only? Just sayin.
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 27, 2009 @ 5:38 pm - March 27, 2009
MM at #79: But there’s this deepseeded or deepseated need to kick a liberal in the ass around here… and sometimes even a GOP moderate or too if they survive the constant hazing.
Exactly so. Do they think accusing liberals of sending their enemies envelopes of white powder, dressing up their children as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs, in support of incestuous and bestial relationships, etc. is even remotely clever? The kind of thinking that repeatedly, interminably produces such statements is one that is so black-and-white, so simplistic and so utterly brain-dead that I suppose an objective step-back-and-think moment is an impossibility. I guess we’re supposed to accept that they think these are rational statements; I’m quite willing to draw conclusions about what that says about what they think they’re saying, as unflattering as that may be. I wonder what they say about other groups of people — y’know, in private, decent company.
Comment by Ignatius — March 27, 2009 @ 7:14 pm - March 27, 2009
MM, you’re projecting again. No one on the entire GP blog today, except bob aka boob, is more hate-filled and famous for incivility, than you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 7:36 pm - March 27, 2009
P.S. And lies about people; I should have added that.
And what’s funny about the gratuitous attack of yours that I quoted, MM, is that I haven’t even been present in this thread to trigger it, since #9. That ‘gratuitous’ element shows precisely where you’re coming from… and always have been.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - March 27, 2009
Um, vote for it, get involved. What do you mean, “a viable part of the GOP”? Part of being a conservative is being concerned with individual rights not group rights. If you mean social conservatism and “gay rights” are somehow at odds, I suggest you are mistaken.
Comment by American Elephant — March 27, 2009 @ 8:53 pm - March 27, 2009
I wonder what they say about other groups of people — y’know, in private, decent company.
Problem is, Ignatius, I can back up quite nicely that liberal gays are dressing children up as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs, as well as calling for legalization of incestuous and plural marriages.
You accusing me of being a racist…..not quite so much.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 12:04 am - March 28, 2009
I find other people telling me whom I must associate with an injustice. In fact it is contrary to one of our unalienable God-given rights, the freedom of association. Is the apartment your property? Obviously not since you’re talking about renting it. And yet you obviously feel entitled to it since injustice can only come from taking away something that is rightfully yours. In short, your idea of justice is using government to force other people to give you things that don’t belong to you against their will. A perversion of justice by any definition.
As IF. Sorry, a little history lesson for you: It was Democrats who supported and defended slavery, Democrats who supported and defended Jim Crow, and Democrats like Al Gore’s father, Democrats like Bill Clinton’s mentor William Fullbright, Democrats like Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Robert Byrd (whom Democrats refer to as the “conscious of the Senate”) who opposed civil rights legislation.
And it is Democrats today whom, if a black person dares stray off their plantation, they smear with epithets such as house n*gger, uncle tom and worse.
It has ALWAYS been the Democrat party from slavery to “progressivism” that has been about controlling others.
I doubt that we all can. I’m sure most Republicans would agree, but as I already noted, Democrats treat any African American who dares stray off their command and control plantation very shabbily indeed. Go look at the very liberal, “progressive” Ted Rall’s treatment of Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Steele and other black Republicans. His blatantly racist editorial cartoons are carried in all the “hip” progressive papers.
More b*stardization of history. “Progressives” universally love and desire powerful, unaccountable central government — they are working feverishly to expand it today. Our nation, on the other hand, exists precisely because our founders rejected unaccountable central government and crafted a constitution that limits the powers of the government to the few enumerated therein.
Moreover “progressives” are defined by abhorrence of conflict in general. Progressives believe all the worlds ills are caused not by evil (such as the tyrannical rule over others which they are more than happy to abide) but by failure to understand the others point of view. They are apologists, appeasers, cowards and in many cases pacifists. And there is no doubt that they are the ones who would want most to appease England. After all, what did England want to do that was so bad? All they wanted was to raise taxes for the public good. And progressives LOVE taxation.
Wrong again! This nation is founded upon the rule of law and a contract called the Constitution of the United States that the founding fathers made it very, very difficult to change. (Which is why “progressives” believe in a “living, breathing” Constitution They want their unelected tyrants in black robes to declare from on high that the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean — precisely because they abhor the document and want to change it without getting all that tiresome “consent of the governed”.
Read the Constituion, read the Federalist papers, read the writings of the founding fathers — the ideas therein are anathema to “progressivism”!
LOL. What the hell is “progresive” about that? Progressives REFUSE to learn, despite the countless times their ideology has been tried and failed, they continue to dig it up and attempt to reanimate it over and over again.
Indeed, “progressive” is just another Orwellian lie by an Orwellian ideology. There is absolutely nothing progressive whatsoever about “progressives”. “Progressives” HATE progress! They are perhaps the most reactionary group on the face of the planet.
We progressed beyond wind and solar power in the eighteenth century, with steam power, the internal combustion engine, transformers, turbines, nuclear energy, etc… Progressives oppose it ALL. They want us to return to windmills and sailing ships. They want us to return to population levels not seen for over a century or more. The oppose nuclear energy, they oppose pesticides, they oppose vaccinations, they oppose genetically modified crops and prefer “organic” crops grown in poo. They oppose travel and believe everyone should live and work in the same village. Their opposition to DDT and genetically modified crops has caused tens of millions of deaths worldwide.
They oppose increased energy consumption in the third world. They oppose flush toilets. I could go on, and on, and on and on listing the REAL progress that so-called “progressives” oppose.
Indeed, this Saturday, “progressives” around the world are turning out the lights to protest the evils of energy and the economic progress it brings!
That’s not “progress”, that’s called being a fanatical, dictatorial, reactionary zealot.
You’re welcome. You need the practice.
Comment by American Elephant — March 28, 2009 @ 5:27 am - March 28, 2009
Comment by American Elephant — March 28, 2009 @ 5:27 am - March 28, 2009
Chuck,
The Jim Crow laws is a bit of a non-sequetor, since it was the Democrats who were pro-Jim Crow, the Republicans who fought them.
It is possible to be ‘obstructionist’ and right. (and I guess Right, but tht’s beside the point)
After all, one of my arguements for the creation of Fred is that it closes the door on that ’slippery slope’ arguement that NDT likes to bring out now and agian. Rather than “If you extend marriage to X, why can’t you extend it to Y? it becomes “X has Fred, Y has Marriage. What about Z?” “Z should start lobbying, good luck with that.”
Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 9:28 am - March 28, 2009
Frak, I hate waiting for the filter.
and I forgot to add (so Bruce doens’t think I’m making an entire post about the filter) I do understand the difference between Condone and Condemn, and yes, I don’t condone the terrorist tactices either. As far as I’m concerned, a nice stay in Gitmo is in order.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 9:31 am - March 28, 2009
You accusing me of being a racist…..not quite so much.
Quote me. Otherwise, keep your paranoia to yourself.
Comment by Ignatius — March 28, 2009 @ 11:07 am - March 28, 2009
condemn: to pass an adverse judgment on; disapprove of strongly; censure
condone: to forgive, pardon, or overlook (an offense)
I think part of the problem is that people sometimes live in a world of absolutes and exact opposites. So if you don’t condemn something, or fail to condemn it repeatedly, even in threads that do not relate to, say FSF, some people will take that as supporting or condoning everything that happened in FSF.
To give an example of the differences.
I support same sex marriage.
I do not support or condone FSF. There are some aspects of it that I do not condemn. Things that are legal and do not involve children.
I condemned, in no uncertain terms, the parents that dressed their children as sex slaves and/or bringing them to FSF.
This will be the last time I will condemn these aspects of FSF in a thread that has nothing to do with FSF. If anyone wants to construe that as condoning or supporting it, well, everyone is entitled to live in their fantasy world.
Do they think accusing liberals of sending their enemies envelopes of white powder, dressing up their children as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs, in support of incestuous and bestial relationships, etc. is even remotely clever?
What’s interesting here is that no one here, not even the bad liberals, has not condemned these actions. The worst that happened was that people objected to being bullied into repeating the obvious (usually in an unrelated thread) on what they already stated.
After all, one of my arguements for the creation of Fred is that it closes the door on that ’slippery slope’ arguement that NDT likes to bring out now and agian. Rather than “If you extend marriage to X, why can’t you extend it to Y? it becomes “X has Fred, Y has Marriage. What about Z?†“Z should start lobbying, good luck with that.â€
Livewire, whether same sex unions are called marriage, civil unions, or Fred, the slippery slope argument is weak and useless. Further, interracial couples didn’t settle for George, or some other name.
No matter what it’s called I’ll agree with you that each group that believes they should have the privilege of marriage (or civil unions) should convince legislators and voters why they should have it. As such, we see a trend moving towards a majority to at least agreeing to civil unions. We see no such trend with incest, multiple partners, and bestiality. Let these people make their cases for such marriages as you suggest. Unfortunately, we still allow children to marry, and there is still this attitude that marriage somehow mitigates sex involving teens amongst themselves or with adults.
Comment by Pat — March 28, 2009 @ 12:44 pm - March 28, 2009
interracial is a non-sequetor Pat.
And I do find the slippery slope argument very real. Remember we went from a ‘right to marital privacy’ to a ‘right to privacy’ to the right to slaughter the unborn in Roe v. Wade.
When you have Justices making up shadows and penumbras and then overturning law less than 20 years old because the court can ’see no purpose’ the slippery slope is VERY real.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 1:15 pm - March 28, 2009
Iggy, that’s an interesting challenge. As an exercise, let me see if I can manage it on NDT’s behalf, that is, if I can quote you accusing NDT of being a racist. First, *IF* I were you, I could simply do it your way, by quoting your following words about NDT out-of-context from #77:
A bigot being a racist. But that won’t do, Iggy, because then I would be reducing myself to your level, using one of your favorite techniques when you hope to reflect discredit on someone: quotation out-of-context. In context (#77), you had some different kind of bigotry (other than racism) in mind for NDT when you said the words. So, that quote fails. OK. But then let’s move along to the following from #82:
Let’s look at the context of that. The context was MM fulminating about the alleged habits of V the K and NDT (and myself, though I wasn’t even around at that point). That, plus earlier text in your same paragraph referring to NDT’s positions specifically, establish NDT as a primary subject of your pronoun, ‘they’. Your statement is then logically the same as:
Next, “I wonder what so-and-so says about other groups of people when he thinks he’s in private, decent company” is something that a reasonable person, in today’s political and social context, would recognize as code for “I wonder if so-and-so is a racist, or similar crude bigot”. Your statement is then functionally equivalent to:
Next, the words “I wonder” mean that you are asking yourself a question. BUT, it’s a wife-beating question; that is, the kind of thing that one says out loud only to plant the suggestion with others, as if someone were to say out loud “I wonder if Iggy has stopped beating his wife.”
So congratulations, Iggy: at the end of the day, that comment seeks to plant the idea of NDT being racist. Your *desire* to pretend that you haven’t planted or suggested it, while it may accord with your posture of civility and superior fairness, is insufficient to alter the fact.
BUT – hang on, I still haven’t quite nailed you: you *can* still wiggle out by arguing the difference between hinting or “seeking to plant” an idea about someone vs. formally accusing them. Darn, so close.
NDT, if you had a different Iggy quotation in mind, let us know.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 28, 2009 @ 1:17 pm - March 28, 2009
interracial is a non-sequetor Pat.
I’m not sure what you mean here, Livewire. In the past many interracial couples were prohibited from marrying. They had to fight for it, and eventually got it. Now it’s the same for same sex couples. Time will tell if how similar or different these situations are.
When you have Justices making up shadows and penumbras and then overturning law less than 20 years old because the court can ’see no purpose’ the slippery slope is VERY real.
Okay, so when did this “slippery slope” begin? With Griswold v. Connecticut? Should a decision on contraceptive use really hinge on the possibility that in the future, the Supreme Court may rule the way they did in Roe v. Wade. Wouldn’t you argue that there is a more compelling case against abortion than just to argue about slippery slopes. Why not argue against it on its own merits.
I’ll agree with you that the argument in Roe v. Wade was flawed. Was it Douglas that talked about penumbras and such? But because abortion is such a contentious issue, and remains a strong issue to this day, if a majority of the voters were pro-life, the ruling would have been overturned.
Comment by Pat — March 28, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - March 28, 2009
What I wrote:
A bigot being a racist.
Definition of ‘bigot’:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
NDT is a bigot. I would call him an ignorant bigot, but that would be redundant.
One of the highest compliments one can pay one’s friends is to consider them too weak to defend themselves, thereby giving oneself the permission — even the moral imperative — to fight his battles, especially when one can turn the conversation into an attention-getting device and a worthless fight all at once. Well, ILC has gotten his attention with the typical worthless blather and grammar analysis. Petty, bitter, old queen.
Comment by Ignatius — March 28, 2009 @ 4:53 pm - March 28, 2009
Correction:
What ILC wrote:
A bigot being a racist.
Comment by Ignatius — March 28, 2009 @ 4:54 pm - March 28, 2009
Here is a little introduction (free of charge) to formal logic: #94 Pat makes a syllogistic comparison between “interracial couples” and “same sex couples.” Since you do not have to be interracial to be a same sex couple and you do not have to be of the same sex to be an interracial couple, the syllogism rests on the pivot (middle term) of being a “couple.” The supposed conclusion is that interracial couples overcame the marriage barrier and since same sex partners are also couples, they should be allowed to marry. Whew! (Pat did not draw this conclusion, but he let the syllogism loose.)
We must now look at what constitutes a “couple” in terms of marriage. Can a same sex interracial couple marry? No. Can a female donkey and a human man marry? No. Can a “couple” be a man and a couple of women or so? No. Etc., etc., etc. With minor exceptions, one man and one woman can marry, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.
There is no formal logical reason to bring up interracial couples when talking about gay marriage. It is a total canard. The misogenation laws were clearly in conflict with the 14th Amendment. The concept of marriage was not changed, the law was changed.
Blacks and “mixed” have had plenty of strife getting the civil rights mess ironed out. I see no logical way that gays can hook their agenda to that history.
Comment by heliotrope — March 28, 2009 @ 6:15 pm - March 28, 2009
One of the highest compliments one can pay one’s friends is to consider them too weak to defend themselves, thereby giving oneself the permission — even the moral imperative — to fight his battles, especially when one can turn the conversation into an attention-getting device and a worthless fight all at once.
Then, Iggy, do you consider straight people who claim they have a moral imperative to fight for gay-sex marriage to be denigrating gays by saying that they are too weak to defend themselves?
Sticking up for your friends does not automatically mean that they are weak. You’re merely trying to make ILC’s actions look bad, and failing horribly at doing it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 6:56 pm - March 28, 2009
Pat,
The slippery slope arguement is there because Griswold pulled a right out of thin air. Or to be more accurate denied the people the people the right to pass ’silly laws’ (to quote the dissent in Griswold).
The danger of the slippery slope is when those in power create ‘rights’ out of thin air. One the bottle is opened, the Genie can’t be put back. The courts are the ones playing with the stopper.
There is a process for changing the laws, changing the government. End run to the courts is not it.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - March 28, 2009
For the sarcasm-deficient in #98, try re-reading.
Comment by Ignatius — March 29, 2009 @ 10:56 am - March 29, 2009
Here is a little introduction (free of charge) to formal logic: #94 Pat makes a syllogistic comparison between “interracial couples†and “same sex couples.†Since you do not have to be interracial to be a same sex couple and you do not have to be of the same sex to be an interracial couple, the syllogism rests on the pivot (middle term) of being a “couple.†The supposed conclusion is that interracial couples overcame the marriage barrier and since same sex partners are also couples, they should be allowed to marry. Whew! (Pat did not draw this conclusion, but he let the syllogism loose.)
Thanks for the logic lesson, heliotrope, but I really don’t need it. I did not attempt to make the point that any couple should have the privilege to marriage. In fact, I’ve stated many times that I don’t believe that a human and non-human animal, plant, or object should marry. I’ve also stated that anyone under 18 should not have the privilege of marriage. And that relatives closely related to each other shouldn’t either.
And thanks for letting me know that about the different possibilities of interracial couples and same sex couples and combinations thereof.
And you’re right I “did not draw this conclusion,” because I made a point of saying that same sex couples have to convince the public at large, as well as legislators, to have same sex marriage or civil unions.
Anyway, in the future, if you think I’ve made a lapse in logic, just point out the flaw, and I’ll be happy to clarify the issue, or correct it.
Comment by Pat — March 29, 2009 @ 11:29 am - March 29, 2009
The slippery slope arguement is there because Griswold pulled a right out of thin air. Or to be more accurate denied the people the people the right to pass ’silly laws’ (to quote the dissent in Griswold).
Livewire, maybe they did pull out a right out of thin air in Griswold. I do have a hard time believing that the founding fathers would actually have felt such a freedom should be denied to married couples, but I guess it wasn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The danger of the slippery slope is when those in power create ‘rights’ out of thin air. One the bottle is opened, the Genie can’t be put back. The courts are the ones playing with the stopper.
This is the part I disagree with. If the Supreme Court had the power to “create ‘rights’ out of thin air,” and they apparently did, they also had the power to plug up the stopper. Especially in a case with abortion, which unlike contraceptive use, is not a silly law and there are rights other than the mother to consider.
I get your point about what your philosophy of court review should be. But let’s face it, courts have been using such powers for a long time now. And Congress is not willing to stop it.
My point is, that issues (such as marriage) should be decided on their own merits. If one is against same sex marriage, is it fair to argue that interracial couples shouldn’t get married, because that would start a slippery slope leading to same sex marriage? Or should interracial marriage be decided on its own merits?
Comment by Pat — March 29, 2009 @ 11:52 am - March 29, 2009
ROFL
It’s so nice to know, Iggy, as one of the reliable and eternal verities, that you don’t make personal attacks in discussions. In fact, you even take upon yourself the thankless burden of preaching kindness and respect. (Although it seems you want to be given it, before you’ll give it.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 29, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - March 29, 2009
But I, for one, have long understood what a really great guy you are, Iggy. After all, you’re the kind of guy who would never, in a million years, ever secretly think of or refer to one of his own blog-friends as a “Bubba”.
Hey, there’s a contrast to chew on: I genuinely respect 6-10 of my fellow commentors and find it fun to occasionally skewer a pathetic challenge sent their way. Whereas you, Iggy, belittle even the one commentor whom you claim as an ally that you would “back any time”. Fascinating.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 29, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - March 29, 2009
Re-quoted for the irony value. (The original quoter having been someone who visibly does not tolerate what he perceives as challenges to his mini-social “group” and/or his political views.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 29, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - March 29, 2009
Did we lose track of the topic? Seems we did. Any way, I feel the best way, and these days, I vote for a candidate based upon philosophy and not political party but if the GOP wants to be relevant, go back to the basics: fiscal conservatism/limited government, individual liberty/freedom, capitalism does it better then socialism/marxism government. I think V the K in some posts a few months ago said he is an independent (I grew up in a Republican family but pretty much I am an independent and have been a long time and feel most comfortable there since I dislike extremes of the leftists/marxists and feel closer to fiscal conservative capitalists ala Reagan…you do need to establish rules of the road, but then get out of the way and I truly believe individuals can handle life better then the “Mommy/Daddy” state the left wants for us.
My Catholic upbringing makes me feel most comfortable as pro life but as a Gay Male I won’t be giving birth any time soon so I do understand a woman’s right to choose but I have to say that it pains me to think of abortions and to me it is killing a life. It is where my heart is. But I think we can all have a dialogue on the issue and respect a person’s individual’s view point.
I blame the Democrats for DADT and DOMA and I believe it was said above the Democrats have solid control of Congress and the Presidency but they will do NOTHING to repeal these laws and throw us under the bus as they always have. The Democratic Congress won’t enact ENDA and won’t enact Hate Crimes and won’t enact protection for things such as those with foreign born partners.
I have always taken the position that VP Cheney got it right….marriage is left to the states and passing DOMA screwed us over to no end since it gave the green light to states to screw us over/threw us under the bus. Had there been no DOMA I believe over time there would have been a number of states with marriage for same sex couples, a number with civil unions/domestic partners and a number with some hybrid variation or some basic rights….DOMA screwed us on that issue.
But back to the point…stick to the basics…..national security, energy independence, individual liberties/freedom and government that governs least governs best (I am not saying we don’t set up rules of the road for basic things like FDIC insurance for hedge funds (but not broad government intervention and take overs)
let the free market do what it does best…be the free market with some basic rules of the road….not Marxist/Socialist power grabs.
I do blame Bush (I call him the GOP LBJ in that he had guns and butter and paid for neither and expanded programs without paying for them) BUT I do give him credit for national security issues and I have tremendous respect for Cheney who I think kept Bush on the right track on that issue (and Bush should have listened to Cheney on North Korea and Iran- but I also give credit to Bush for what he did in Africa and finally coming around to do what Condi Rice talked about in “clear and hold” strategy that led to the surge (and for Bush for telling the dumb asses like Jim Baker to take a hike) but I think that Rummy and his crew screwed up Iraq until David Petreaus came along and he shouldn’t have let Jake Garner go and disbanding the Iraqi Army etc.)
For the GOP….stick to the basics…..individual liberty, be the party of Lincoln…if you have the values of freedom, individualism, capitalism and limited government, that will get you further and build from there.
The GOP has a lot of ideas, just dust them off and use them (Bush to me was like his father a big spender) I wish Bush had stuck to “compassionate conservativism” and he would have gone further with that….that we can help ourselves better then government…which really goes back to a Reagan view point…or even more basic “give a person a fish and he eats for a day. teach a person to fish and they eat for a life time” So, have government get out of the way and let us do for ourselves what we know how to do..live our lives as we wish and our talents take us…true the “Reagan safety net” would be in place>…i.e. unemployment benefits if needed and the basics as we know them…..but no need for massive new programs….I am betting that hospitals and doctors can create a better system of medical records then the government, etc..well you get the basic idea….free enterprise does it better any day of the week.
Comment by Rocket — March 30, 2009 @ 1:13 am - March 30, 2009
BTW, I also think government bail outs ala TARP from Bush and the Marxist in Chief’s versions are horrendous..I think that McCain should have said hell no and stood with the GOP House members in direct opposition to them…he might have won and shown that things like Bankruptcy is what there is for such messes. Plus, he should have pushed harder for Fannie/Freddie reforms and pushed the Federal Reserve to credit liquidity in the banking system (which is using free market solutions to do that) AND IF Paulson was letting Lehman fail (YET HE BAILED OUT Baer Sterns) then I believe that things such as Bankruptcy Court for AIG, the auto companies should have been the solution and they still are and the same thing for the big banks. In a free market economy, there are always capitalists who would find a way to pick up the pieces and let the market correct itself. The same with the so called toxic assets….the current method is a joke…..put them up for auction and let the free market buy them..there will be takers….its what our economy is based upon..free market capitalism…as I said it died on Jan 20, 2009 at noon time….one can only hope it gets re started on January 20, 2013 at noon time with a decent GOP President and yes for the record for me that would be Sarah Palin….she can have Eric Cantor or Paul Ryan as her VP…..or Bobby Jindal…all would be fine but I still say GO Sarah GO:)
and ok, given those thoughts, considering my view points I might as well just take the leap and go back to my roots and join the GOP….and so I shall…there I feel better now:)
Comment by Rocket — March 30, 2009 @ 1:25 am - March 30, 2009
Would Steve Schmidt have had a change of heart if McCain was president instead of Obama? Steve Schmid is a phony and a right wing bigot. I’ll bet he made his gay sister proud.
Comment by Jay — April 17, 2009 @ 11:03 pm - April 17, 2009
[...] Blade acclaimed by the GayPatriot, the internet home for the American gay conservative. GayPatriot » Steve Schmidt Plots Strategy for GOP on Gays xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Is this the "right" way [...]
Pingback by What The GOP needs - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum — April 18, 2009 @ 6:32 am - April 18, 2009
[...] month, former McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt advised Republicans to “steer clear” of divisive social issues. This month a headline in USA Today suggested he had gone a step [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Steve Schmidt’s Comments on the GOP & Gay Marriage — April 19, 2009 @ 3:25 pm - April 19, 2009
[...] a former senior strategist to the McCain campaign has urged Republican candidates to “steer clear of divisive social issues” like gay marriage and abortion in order to become more electorally [...]
Pingback by Pajamas Media » Can Michael Steele Really Reframe Gay Marriage as an Economic Issue? — May 26, 2009 @ 4:24 am - May 26, 2009
[...] a former senior strategist to the McCain campaign has urged Republican candidates to “steer clear of divisive social issues” like gay marriage and abortion in order to become more electorally [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » How Should the GOP Address Gay Marriage? — May 26, 2009 @ 5:42 am - May 26, 2009