Comments Posted By BD57
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 16 Comments
GOP MORE POPULAR THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE YESTERDAY
Mr. Moran:
Define "less emphasis" - -
I suppose it's in the eyes of the beholder, but I'd still like to hear your definition.
Using your analysis, what I see is the Republican brand has lost significant ground since January 20, 2001. From where I sit, I think that had a lot more to do with (a) Republican Congresses spending money like drunken sailors & failing to police their own; (b) a Republican President's failure to restrain (and often encouraging) the irresponsibility of Congressional spending; (c) Executive indifference to the national conversation on issues; and (d) botched "war management" - the Administration was too slow to change strategy & almost wholly indifferent to defending its efforts ("Chimpy McBusHitler" stuck because W was too content to leave his legacy to the verdict of history - he failed to realize, or at least appreciate, that defending the effort from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is part of winning the fight).
The notion that social conservatives are "THE" problem is, quite frankly, nuts.
I'd love to read a post laying out what you're for - and please, not just the platitudes.
What are you arguing for in terms of policy - not "I don't want us to talk about this", but an exposition of "this is what we should be talking about." Bonus points if you don't say anything snarky or critical about the social cons in the process.
Because, all your protestations to the contrary, your writing indicates you are just as eager to exclude the social cons as you claim they are to exclude you.
Comment Posted By BD57 On 19.05.2009 @ 11:52
REPORT FROM THE FRONT: PRAGMATISTS HAVE NO SOUL
Mr. Moran:
Congrats - you reacted exactly as I PREDICTED.
I asked you questions. Maybe they were pointed - someone with more intellect and less arrogance would've welcomed the opportunity to answer them and flesh out his so called "moderate conservatism."
You chose to throw a tantrum. And insult a voter. For a guy who supposedly wants to win people to his banner, that's a twofer. Congrats.
In your case, Pat Buchanan (hard to believe, I know) had it right: the insults begin when intellect is exhausted.
I now realize how quickly you tire.
Toodles.
Comment Posted By BD57 On 19.05.2009 @ 18:22
Brad:
"Federalism" - good principle.
Of course, you're describing where we were before Roe v. Wade - there was no "constitutional right" to abortion, the decision was left to the individual states to resolve through the political process. And then the Supreme Court threw the "federalism" approach out the window; now, nothing can be done without the blessing of the high priests in the black robes.
The same-sex marriage advocates are pursuing the same strategy. Your approach, if pursued, is practically guaranteed to result in same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.
If you don't have a problem with that, that's fine - say so.
BTW: Mike Farmer is right.
You can get the overwhelming majority of Republicans to support measures which reduce the number of abortions even though some stalwarts will say "it's not enough."
Comment Posted By BD57 On 19.05.2009 @ 07:47
lotta straw dogs being tossed around ....
What hills are you "moderates" willing to die on?
You want to ditch pro-life, you want to ditch social issues & you basically want to ditch social conservatives ....
OK - what are you FOR?
What's your tax policy? Budget policy? Position on Obama's spending priorities? Environmental policy?
What are you offering voters that's unique?
At what point do you stop bitching about "conservatives" and oppose The One?
Comment Posted By BD57 On 18.05.2009 @ 20:12
So if I read this correctly, it's OK if Republicans are opposed to gay marriage & abortion in their hearts, they just shouldn't ever do it in public.
Those 'divisive' social issues are brought front & center by a Democrat Party dedicated to abortion on demand, gay marriage, etc. - and the only ones at fault are Republicans who oppose them?
I take it you want a Republican Party that is 'economics' and 'security' only. Is that correct?
If not, how are conservatives who care about the culture supposed to know the limits of the pen you want to put them in?
Thank you for so brilliantly making my point for me. And no, you didn't "read this correctly. Not even close. Even for a mouthbreathing, slackjawed yawper it's pathetic.
You read into what I wrote exactly what you wanted to see - not what the words actually said. That bespeaks an ignorance so profound as to disqualify you from commenting on anything political.
If you can point out where I say I want a Republican party that is 'economics' and 'security' only, I will give you my next month's paycheck. If you can show me where I say " it's OK if Republicans are opposed to gay marriage and abortion in their hearts, they just shouldn't ever do it in public," I will give you my Vette. Don't say, "That's what I meant" because any boob with half a brain can read what I wrote and laugh at you for your utter stupidity in drawing those conclusions. The fact that there will be others on this thread who will agree with your assessment means that either there are a lot of psychics who can read what I write and then take an entirely off the wall summary of that and pass it off as "analysis" or the conservative base is made up of unthinking, shallow minded cretins with minnow sized brains.
In your case, I'll definitely take the latter.
ed.
Comment Posted By BD57 On 18.05.2009 @ 11:40
busboy:
Now this is fun ....
so called 'hard conservatives' have policy views. Stronger military; missile defense; lower taxes, fewer regulations; respect for religion in American life; support for marriage (and so on).
If you think they're claiming moral superiority, it may just be that you don't like them being sure of what they believe - a lot of people think refusing to back down when challenged is somehow 'arrogant.'
I have noted a pattern - - - - even in the face of direct requests to state the 'moderate' platform, it doesn't happen ...
C'mon guys - it ought not be this hard to answer the question.
Comment Posted By BD57 On 17.05.2009 @ 12:46
Chuck:
You're right...
Problem is, that's just an affectation -
"We're fair and reasonable, we try to see both sides, we're not dogmatic, we think we all should just be able to get along ...."
Are we to be moderate in our love of freedom? In our defense of country? In our desire to leave our kids a better nation than we inherited?
What are "moderates" - beyond people who seem to think they're somehow superior to people who aren't as enlightened as they are?
Comment Posted By BD57 On 16.05.2009 @ 19:52
It's annoying to see self-proclaimed Republicans employ the same labeling games in intra-party contests that the Dems use in inter-party elections.
What in Hades is a "moderate conservative"?
And - because we're talking about litmus tests, how about we drop the conceit that only conservatives have them.
There are most assuredly "litmus tests" which disqualify one from having the "moderate" qualifier - how about being honest about it? Even better, how about fessing up to what they are?
Tell us what you "moderates" are for, not just what (and who) you are against.
Comment Posted By BD57 On 16.05.2009 @ 14:11
IF REAGAN TOLERATED MODERATES, WHY CAN'T TODAY'S CONSERVATIVES?
funny man:
If you can't see the contempt Arlen Specter & Olympia Snowe have for the base, you're not paying attention.
Mr. Moran:
With all due respect,
* If 1980s Reagan was on the present scene, you'd be casting him as an intolerant conservative - - - he was pro-life, he would have opposed judicially imposed 'gay marriage' & his support for immigration reform in the 1980s was at least premised on enforcing the law as part of the deal.
* Saying Jack Kemp 'broke with Conservatives because he opposed red-lining' - - - geez, what a show of good faith in bringing people together. Let me paraphrase & we'll see if you really want to say this: "Kemp wasn't a racist like conservatives of his time."
* Kemp supporting amnesty in the 1980s is irrelevant to the present day. First, "1980s Kemp" was operating in a world pre-Simpson/Mazzoli ... "2000s Kemp" would have the benefit of knowing what a disaster that approach turned out to be; second, "1980s Kemp" wouldn't seek Republican support for amnesty as part of an immigration reform by implying Republicans who opposed the effort were racists ... we can't say the same of so-called 'moderate' Republicans in the 2000s (or was Lindsay Graham, et al. kidding?)
* Finally, Jack Kemp had the one quality that you, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Meghan McCain, et al. lack - - - Kemp accepted the good faith of those who disagreed with him. He was willing to engage in a battle of ideas - he recognized that insult is not argument.
You want to advance the argument?
Show us what hill your moderates are prepared to die on ... if they're principled and not just opportunists, they exist.
On what issues can conservatives count on them?
Comment Posted By BD57 On 4.05.2009 @ 17:30
I'll be fascinated to learn where the likes of Specter agreed with Republicans "on principle" ...
Make the case that Specter's orthodoxy outweighed his apostasies - it'd make interesting reading.
Until then, this "purge of the RINOs" storyline is a conceit - - - the aggressor claiming the role of victim.
Comment Posted By BD57 On 3.05.2009 @ 18:32
