Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
996 Posts
Karl Rove help lead the GOP into wilderness.
Amen.
I have no exceptions except possibly #3, if he thinks a 'war on terror' involves actual bullets and explosions on our part. Everybody thinks getting serious with intelligence (without unconstitutional surveillance of citizens) is good, but supporting pointless military action abroad is a no-go. Particularly unilateral hegemonic military action that could be averted via sensible policy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
Mostly good, but #9 loses me. Repubs need to quit telling everyone how to live their lives. Until they abandon the relationship with the religious fanatics*, I'm voting Libertarian.



* if your most important issue is abortion, you are a religious fanatic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
* if your most important issue is abortion, you are a religious fanatic.
What would you call someone for whom abortion rights are the most important issue?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
What would you call someone for whom abortion rights are the most important issue?
They'd be a pro choice fanatic and equally screwed up in my opinion. Any single issue voter is an ignorant fool.

But, that said, most pro choice advocates seem to me to consider a candidate for a variety of issue and being pro-choice is a plus. Whereas, pro-lifers will completely dismiss a candidate regardless of where he stands on other issues based on that one issue alone. That puts them more completely into my "ignorant fool" classification.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
Is Karl Rove a Chrysler executive? Blindfold ( a Rush limbaugh pocket square) and cigarette is all he merits.
I thought it was the ghost of Captain Edward Smith come back to give new steering orders to the helm. Then again that might be seen as insulting Captain Smith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
They'd be a pro choice fanatic and equally screwed up in my opinion. Any single issue voter is an ignorant fool.

But, that said, most pro choice advocates seem to me to consider a candidate for a variety of issue and being pro-choice is a plus. Whereas, pro-lifers will completely dismiss a candidate regardless of where he stands on other issues based on that one issue alone.
That puts them more completely into my "ignorant fool" classification.
When a pro-life Democrat runs for the Presidency then you'll see an exhibition of civic unrest that is sure to change your opinion!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
Mostly good, but #9 loses me. Repubs need to quit telling everyone how to live their lives. Until they abandon the relationship with the religious fanatics*, I'm voting Libertarian.

* if your most important issue is abortion, you are a religious fanatic.
+1. Single-issue voting is nearsighted and dangerous, and it frustrates me to no end how this one issue (and the religious fanatics to promote it) have highjacked the GOP in the past 25 years. Though I dislike Rove immensely, I would never question his intellect. Honestly, I pretty much agree with Rove with the exception of point #9.

Will the GOP ever have the guts to back either a pro-choice candiate...or at least someone who is farily agnostic on the issue? If your remember, even Reagan was fairly mum on the the topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
A bit of historical perspective is useful in this case. The Republican Party was formed because neither of the two parties in existence at the time would take an stand against slavery. The Democrats were a pro-slavery party and the Whigs basically tried to avoid the issue in every election.

If the Republican party abandons social conservatives, the Democratic party is certainly not going to take up the issues that social conservatives care about. If neither party represent those idea, social conservatives will be forced to form a third party which will siphon votes away from the Republicans.

If anyone bothers to read exit polling information, a lot of people who voted for Bush voted against the Republicans this time because they were angry at the abandonment of fiscal conservatism over the last 8 years. Many of the Republicans who lost were moderate Republicans and big spenders; many of the new Democrats who won represent the more moderate wing of the Party (excluding Obama). They are pro-gun, some are more socially conservative than the average Democrat. This is the same profile of the Freshmen Democrats that won in 2006.

The election does not represent a major lurch left. It was basically an election about punishing a bad president, and that was furthered by the fact that the Republicans put up a bad candidate (Bob Dole II).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
A question for everyone. If politics is an attempt to influence public policy to make it more amenable to your beliefs, what does it matter on what issues someone votes or on what they base their beliefs on those issues?

Over the past few years people have basically argued that religion should have no part in politics. Ok, but why should Karl Marx, Russel Kirk, Ludwig von Mises or Edmund Burke? Aren't they all just competing philosophies?

I don't like single issue voters because they are easily manipulated. Many Republican candidates have used abortion as an issue, and have had no real intent to change anything. If they did, they would lose the issue and those that support it. Republicans have a strong interest in keeping abortion as an issue, rather than in actually doing anything about it.

But having said that, why is someone who votes based on that one issue wrong? If that, or the flat-tax, or gay marriage is extremely important, than why shouldn't they go out and advocate for it by supporting candidate that support their beliefs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
A question for everyone. If politics is an attempt to influence public policy to make it more amenable to your beliefs, what does it matter on what issues someone votes or on what they base their beliefs on those issues?

Over the past few years people have basically argued that religion should have no part in politics. Ok, but why should Karl Marx, Russel Kirk, Ludwig von Mises or Edmund Burke? Aren't they all just competing philosophies?

I don't like single issue voters because they are easily manipulated. Many Republican candidates have used abortion as an issue, and have had no real intent to change anything. If they did, they would lose the issue and those that support it. Republicans have a strong interest in keeping abortion as an issue, rather than in actually doing anything about it.

But having said that, why is someone who votes based on that one issue wrong? If that, or the flat-tax, or gay marriage is extremely important, than why shouldn't they go out and advocate for it by supporting candidate that support their beliefs?
There is nothing inherently foolish about according such weight to an issue that it overwhelmes the aggregate weight accorded to all other issues. I disagree with Obama on most issues, but if he were pro-life and McCain were pro-choice I would have supported Obama without reservation. A society that affords its unborn with no legal protection is as morally bankrupt as a society that affords African-Americans or Jews no legal protection. And yes, I would have been a single issue voter in the US 1850s and Weimar Republic too.

Also, the casting of aspersions on the GOP and its motives regarding abortion amuses those of us who actually are Republicans and knowledgable about party politics. Y'all probably think New Coke was a clever ploy to reinvigorate the Coke brand too.

Finally, I disagree that either Bob Dole or John McCain were bad candidates. Both are good men and solid candidates who ran against exceptional candidates with outstanding political skills. No one could have beaten Obama this year once the credit markets collapsed. Those who think Romney are kidding themselves (and Romney was my preferred candidate). At this time in our history the American people would have chosen community organizer over investment banker in a heartbeat. I hope we chose wisely. Let's give Obama a fair chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
+1. Single-issue voting is nearsighted and dangerous, and it frustrates me to no end how this one issue (and the religious fanatics to promote it) have highjacked the GOP in the past 25 years. Though I dislike Rove immensely, I would never question his intellect. Honestly, I pretty much agree with Rove with the exception of point #9.

Will the GOP ever have the guts to back either a pro-choice candiate...or at least someone who is farily agnostic on the issue? If your remember, even Reagan was fairly mum on the the topic.
Speaking as someone who defines himself as a moderate Republican -- which these days, of course, means a Democrat -- I concur with this. Not that I care much if the current GOP implodes further, but I do think Rove is pretty much correct except for #9, which is a non-starter. Palinism (can we call it that now? It's catchy) appeals to a shrinking demographic that won't win Republicans elections in the future.

David Brooks's recent columns about how the Republicans have driven away educated, affluent, coastal voters, and how the party will likely tack farther right before it comes to its senses, are must reading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
There is nothing inherently foolish about according such weight to an issue that it overwhelmes the aggregate weight accorded to all other issues. I disagree with Obama on most issues, but if he were pro-life and McCain were pro-choice I would have supported Obama without reservation. A society that affords its unborn with no legal protection is as morally bankrupt as a society that affords African-Americans or Jews no legal protection. And yes, I would have been a single issue voter in the US 1850s and Weimar Republic too.
Just one comment here, so as not to hijack the thread: America is not with you on this issue. America has not been with you on this issue for a good forty years. Every reliable poll-taker can affirm this. And the Republican Party has only ever been anxious to keep the issue in play so as to keep voters like you on the hook. They are certainly not looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would be highly unpopular. They have never been serious about over-turning.

Let me be blunt about this: if you have been voting based on candidates' "support" for a right-to-life position, for the past however many years, you have been had. The candidates thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,004 Posts
But having said that, why is someone who votes based on that one issue wrong? If that, or the flat-tax, or gay marriage is extremely important, than why shouldn't they go out and advocate for it by supporting candidate that support their beliefs?
I don't think that a single issue voter is wrong. I do believe that a single issue party, or a party that tests one on a single issue before one is admitted beyond the velvet rope, is doomed to its eventual demise as public opinion and consensus move on.

Buzz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
A society that affords its unborn with no legal protection is as morally bankrupt as a society that affords African-Americans or Jews no legal protection.
When I see "right to life" voters putting major energy into promoting policies that improve the lot of babies born into poverty and children living in it, both in the United States and abroad, then I will take those voters a little more seriously. But of course, I had best not hold my breath. I have never gotten why the pre-born are a societal responsibility while the born are merely a parental responsibility. Seems to me that is backwards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
Just one comment here, so as not to hijack the thread: America is not with you on this issue. America has not been with you on this issue for a good forty years. Every reliable poll-taker can affirm this. And the Republican Party has only ever been anxious to keep the issue in play so as to keep voters like you on the hook. They are certainly not looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would be highly unpopular. They have never been serious about over-turning.
Polls are all over the place on the issue of Roe and abortion. Much depends on how questions are presented, as always. And the notion of a monolitic Republican Party design to simply use abortion for political purposes is just not true. No doubt some Republicans are sympathetic to such a tactic; others are not -- either because they are pro-choice or because they are pro-life. The assertion that the secret and monolithic party elders have been exercising the strategy you describe is a canard that has currency because so many people just keep repeating it. As a long-standing Republican who counts many operatives and leaders as friends, I know for a fact that what you assert is false. The truth is always more messy. For instance, Bush II definitely viewed Roe as both lawless and morally bankrupt and genuinely wanted it overturned. His father was more indifferent. McCain's views align more with Bush II but not as a priority. Other Republicans are all over the place, which is obvious if you just observe.

But if your primary point is that most Americans do not accord the abortion issue the kind of weight that I do, then I absolutely agree. I wish they did, and some day they may. But the fact that most Americans don't see it as all that important does not alter the fact that I do. Nor does it alter my responsiblity to work for justice as I best understand it. I would hardly have been among the majority in the Weimar Republic either.

Your secondary point may be that the Republican Party's assertion of pro-life views impairs its ability to become a majority party (which is curiously at tension with your view that it is a dishonest tactic used to make it a majority party), then you may be right on this too -- it is hard to know. But at least the Republican Party supports the notion that Americans should be able to decide the question using the political process, rather than by dishonest judicial fiat. I'll bet if most Americans truly understood Roe and how it dishonestly robbed the question from the American people, the Republican party position that it should be over-turned would be a majority position, even if its position that states should generally prohibit it might not be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
When I see "right to life" voters putting major energy into promoting policies that improve the lot of babies born into poverty and children living in it, both in the United States and abroad, then I will take those voters a little more seriously. But of course, I had best not hold my breath. I have never gotten why the pre-born are a societal responsibility while the born are merely a parental responsibility. Seems to me that is backwards.
Another unfair canard not supported by the emperical data. https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216
Consistent with Brooks' study, notwithstanding how successful you may be as a top broker, I'll bet you one steak dinner that my charitable contributions are at least three times yours, measured either absolutely or by percentage of income. Seriously. A dinner at Bones when you are next in Atlanta. We can share data by pm, including tax return info. Come on, put your money where your words are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
There is nothing inherently foolish about according such weight to an issue that it overwhelmes the aggregate weight accorded to all other issues. I disagree with Obama on most issues, but if he were pro-life and McCain were pro-choice I would have supported Obama without reservation. A society that affords its unborn with no legal protection is as morally bankrupt as a society that affords African-Americans or Jews no legal protection. And yes, I would have been a single issue voter in the US 1850s and Weimar Republic too.

Also, the casting of aspersions on the GOP and its motives regarding abortion amuses those of us who actually are Republicans and knowledgable about party politics. Y'all probably think New Coke was a clever ploy to reinvigorate the Coke brand too.

Finally, I disagree that either Bob Dole or John McCain were bad candidates. Both are good men and solid candidates who ran against exceptional candidates with outstanding political skills. No one could have beaten Obama this year once the credit markets collapsed. Those who think Romney are kidding themselves (and Romney was my preferred candidate). At this time in our history the American people would have chosen community organizer over investment banker in a heartbeat. I hope we chose wisely. Let's give Obama a fair chance.
A couple of points, in response. First, I have no problem with single issue voters, or any voters voting for a candidate based on any number of issues. I'd hope that people vote on issues, rather than personality, but my point is that several people here seem to want to drive religious voters from the public sphere, and I'd like to know why they think that is appropriate.

On the abortion issue, you are right there is a range of commitment on the issue in the Republican party, but certainly some candidates have used the issue to get support from social conservatives with no real intention of pursuing the issue in any way.

Last, I don't think McCain or Dole were bad men, but they were unexciting candidates, candidates that the base of the Republican party were lukewarm about supporting.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top